Majority of Democrats think Kamala Harris would make a good president, AP-NORC poll shows
https://apnews.com/article/kamala-harris-poll-biden-newsom-whitmer-7ef83e5c8e510e39d7c54f7e28310064Open linkView original on lemmy.world205
Comments119https://apnews.com/article/kamala-harris-poll-biden-newsom-whitmer-7ef83e5c8e510e39d7c54f7e28310064Open linkView original on lemmy.world
People are begging for that D. Just give them the D!
What's 270?
The number of electoral votes needed to win the presidency
Electoral college minimum majority to win the election.
The only number that matters. Unfortunately, the number of people that want a President doesn't matter in our goofy, slave-era Electoral College.
The number of electoral college votes to win. Each state has a number of votes based on the census population data.
270 is half the EC.
It’s the amount of people the U.S who want to vote for Kamala Harris.
That's sort of the whole deal - we're all looking for who can get us there the best (at least those of us arguing in good faith)
They Harris Trump wins she is a fucking horrible choice. Yall forget how many independents are sitting on the fence. Which means a lot of them still can't choose (which should say a lot) No way she can beat Trump.
I still can't fathom how the fuck anyone is an independent anymore. Too lazy to vote, yes. Have no idea who your party's candidate is? Sure. Don't know which party to vote for? No way in hell.
Looking at voting data, almost no one is really independent. The vast majority of people who register independent almost always vote down party lines for one party, and they just don't want to label themselves democrat or republican.
I'm registered independent. If we had options, I would have changed that to vote in the democratic primaries, and I considered changing it to vote uncommitted.
Although I align more closely with progressive democrats, serious question, where do I fit if what I believe in most strongly is a Cooperative Economy and an alternative measure of GDP?
For good measure for those interested:
a sort of mathematical proof cooperation works better for, not only everyone but, the individual than competition and acting in one's own self interest (aka capitalism).
Economy for the Common Good (one alternative measure of GDP) explained. Starts around 7:00 minutes in.
I am familiar with the concept of the cooperative economy
You vote in local elections. You look for people with more progressive platforms and you put in the work to get them known. Even if they don't necessarily want what you want, but their presence would move the overton window in your favor, you help them. I also work with people who want to scrap FPTP voting too. Even if we hard disagree on most issues, something like that is worth working together for. The US is very right wing, very corporatist, and very out of touch with anything not in their social bubble. This is going to take generations of work. Until then, if you are progressively aligned, you only, currently, have one real option at the federal level. Not voting for them doesn't really hurt them, personally, but it will hurt a lot of people not in charge if the regressive party takes power.
And who knows, might have to pick-up a rifle at some point.
Which is why I don't understand why the Democrats seem to so heavily target these mythical independents. Feels like the Republicans have completely stopped catering to anyone other than their base, meanwhile Democrats seem to ignore their base or compromise their own values for voters that don't even exist. To me it's the strongest argument for the whole theory of controlled opposition, even if I don't really believe in that.
It is because our elections are not won by large margins. The difference between winning and losing is often decided less than 3% of the vote. While people who register for them, are basically locked in, with more nuance I am not getting into now, there still is about 3 percent of independent voters that do seem to vacillate between parties. With independent voters making up 42% of registered voters that amount can win, or lose, them the election.
Ok so 3% of the 42% of independent voters are truly undecided. Why spend the effort on them, vs actually motivating the roughly 50% of your base + independents who are actually Democrats that just don't show up.
It feels like by doggedly pursuing this tiny fraction of 3% undecided voters, they disillusion a much higher percentage of their own already locked in supporters from actually showing up. If they spent their efforts on targeting supporters that just don't vote, could they get 5% more votes? 10? 15?
Time and time again it feels that the side that wins isn't the one that flipped a vote, but rather the side that was more excited and engaged. Someone the Republicans seem to have figured out and work heavily towards.
It is a lot harder to get a large percent of your voting base behind a single person when it is the de facto party for anyone left of autocratic, right wing, authoritarianism. Meanwhile a republican can just belligerently spout bigotry, play a "strong man" leader, and pay lip service to theocrats, and a small handful of single issues, and activate a base who will vote for them like it is a religious decree.
It is that simple. Roughly 1/3 of the population want fascism, or something is the same wheelhouse. A little more do not necessarily want that, but are unconcerned with it happening as long as they get to own a gun, or whatever their single issue may be. Everyone who thinks this is bad is stuck with the democrats, and most people are to physically comfortable to truly risk anything for the large systemic changes needed to fix this. At least not the will to sustain it for the multiple generations it will take to see the fruits of that labor.
In the thumbnail… is she wearing a tan suit?
Oh yes.
This would be awesome.
It was a white suit that she spilled Dijon mustard on.
You can already smell the indignation Fox News is cooking up
Imagine if they caught her with her feet on the desk! Gasp! Horror! Shock!
Was she doing a latte salute at the time?
Would be cool, but 1) doubt they would do a ticket with two women, unfortunately. This is already a massive gambit, they will need to do everything they can to keep/get more votes, and imo, that means a man (preferably with name recognition) for VP pick.
And, 2) VP is a toothless, essentially useless position. I think it would be a mistake to take AOC away from her home district for 4 to 8 years just for her to do nothing meaningful. We need her in our legislative branch right now.
AOC's district is dark blue. It won't effect the votes much. It would raise AOCs profile if she has ambitions for POTUS but that's so many hypotheticals.
The most immediate impact is that it would motivate the base. Dems need voter turnout to win. 2 women lashing the Republicans over abortion rights is a winner imo on top of AOCs popularity with the base. There are sound reasons for it. Not saying I think it's a good idea though.
She is a unique voice in Congress that cannot just be replaced by some generic Democrat.
I would feel absolutely terrible to doom her to the position of VP. Nobody of her talents, charisma, convictions, etc. should ever be made to become irrelevant as a VP. It's a curse.
Trump is elected: we descend into a fascist hellhole. A woman of color is elected, they probably start a civil war. We are fucked.
You sure about that when a metric shitton of cops and military support Trump?
the US armed forces would never organize against the majority of civilians.
It's not the unorganized yokels I'm worried about, but all the Trumpers already embedded in our forces. It's a thing for fascists to infect agencies and organizations able to legally dish out violence.
Sorry if I'm not as confident in the institutions of the US as everybody else.
I think Jan 6th mostly deflated that risk. The police might stir some shit but most service people have a pretty strong pride in us being a democracy. Trump has shown he doesn't respect the democratic process and so a coup is unlikely.
I’m not scared of Y’all Qaeda. Let them fucking try.
Is it sad that to be a "good" president, all one has to do is beat trump at the polls (ok the electoral college), and then do nothing else?
A great president would beat trump then roll back the immunity ruling (somehow ;) ) codify roe v Wade, and resign.
Why would they resign and present an undue opportunity for the far right to come to power again?
Would make the vice the president, who then could/would pardon the resignee, making anything the resignee did an official act, and if not then the pardon is the official act.
Yeah… you’re right. I’m an exhausted idiot who is too tired to think straight.
What are you on about ?
Why are you dragging the goalposts down the field ?
I kinda wanna see someone paint the White House in tie dye. White is so…. Boring.
Democrats barely even have that much ambition.
Can these fucking articles actually link to the data? I appreciate including the sampling information but right now I really want to see the actual questions being asked because push-polling absolutely has been used by some of the other outlets.
Okay I found the poll and it's fucking awful...
https://apnorc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/July-2024-W1-topline.pdf
For Approve, Disapprove, Undecided, Null they have:
Harris: 30, 49, 20, 1
Newsom: 17, 31, 51, 1
Whitmer: 15, 21, 64, 1
Harris clearly has the best name recognition but 49% disapproval is insanely high. And they didn't include any other potential candidates like AOC, Warren, or Whitehouse.
How the hell is 30% a majority
Isn't AOC too young anyway?
Nope, she'll be old enough for the inauguration and that's all that matters.
The undecided can be convinced during the campaign.
But I doubt I'll start thinking Kamala would be a good president...
I do think that she'll be able to beat Trump in the election at least. Which is better than Joe.
What has she done to make you feel she is a psychopath?
psychopath
/sī′kə-păth″/
noun
Slavery as a punishment for crime is legal as per the american constitution. Which absolutely vile, but america refuses to change their bit of paper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution?wprov=sfti1
Is that what sentencing typically involves, terms of slavery? I.e you are to serve X years at Y penitentiary? Does it need to be more specific or is that good enough for Y to “loan” out to do whatever?
I do not understand what you are asking?
Slavery as a punishment for a crime is enshrined in the constitution.
Thats all.
I’m just wondering if, during sentencing, slavery is already being part of the punishment, or of it has to be tacked on separately or explicitly. I.e are convicts being sentenced to slavery, explicitly, or do they have a choice in any of the slavery stuff? I’m asking about what is actually happening today.
Source?
So you don't have to wait 40 minutes again, I googled:
And got a whole bunch of results...
https://prospect.org/justice/how-kamala-harris-fought-to-keep-nonviolent-prisoners-locked-up/
Especially with Lemmy being so much smaller, you really shouldn't just wait for someone to do it for you. "Teach a man to fish" and all that.
That article says Harris was acting on behalf of Govenor Jerry Brown as defense attorney. So just like OJ Simpson’s lawyers had to defend him because that’s their job regardless of their feelings. Lawyers can’t make decisions for their clients. They just argue on their behalf in court.
The call to relocate the overpopulated prisoners to the firecamps was not made by Harris but other lawyers that worked in the same office. They only suggested it as a temporary solution after the Supreme Court wouldn’t accept their solution to build another prison to address the overpopulation.
The Supreme Court suggested Govenor Jerry Brown release nonviolent prisoners to address the overpopulation. To be clear, this includes sex offenders, white collar criminals and arsonists just to name a few “non-violent” crimes.
Any decisions Harris made in this role were her job as a lawyer defending the previous attorney general’s decisions Govenor Jerry Brown. At least that’s what the article says. I can’t verify any of the claims because I don’t see any citations for them. But maybe that’s because I read it on mobile.
AGs are elected in California. She wasn't a Jerry Brown employee.
No. If you make a claim, you back it up or get disregarded. It's that simple. This is how we prevent misinformation from being spread. Stop being indignant over being lazy/irresponsible.
I mean, there's asking politely after specifying what you would like a source for....
Or you could reply to a paragraph of text with:
And hope the person both guesses what you're asking for and puts the time in to Google something for you and provide the link.
Asking nicely is more likely to get the help you're asking for.
So you made it up. Got it
I want to point out that psychopathy is a colloquial term, not a clinical one. The most popular set of criteria, the Psychopathy Checklist - Revised, is not empirically reliable or valid. Its creator Robert Hare has made a lucrative career out of convincing the world (and the prison system) that psychopaths are Definitely Real. The PCL-R is used to justify harsher punishments and longer prison sentences, and it's completely made up.
Yeah, "not 20 years past retirement age" is a pretty low bar to clear, but at least we did it.
What campaign? The election is in 3.5 months. Every day that Biden doesn't step down is one less day for Harris to start ramping up her campaign efforts.
Also, please someone do a poll of the undecided who have strong feelings towards...
Although most may fall firmly in the Trump camp, I'm betting there are some undecided who think that women absolutely should not be president.
Not to mention waffling Republicans may be more incentivized to vote if the Democrat isn't an old white dude.
49% disapproval rating.....ye gods that's high. Pick literally anyone else. Even Biden yeesh
I'd pay big money to see a prosecutor debate a criminal.
I think she'd be shit, but I would still vote for her over Trump if that's literally the only other option, because as bad she may be it'd still be better than Trump.
I am voting party not person this election.
Get the fuck on board. We gonna out party that cult.
Ah, a distinction without a difference.
Ah, a thought-terminating cliche.
⁷
A "thought-terminating" cliché based in sound logic. We could all hope more logical dilemmas that were just as solvable.On further study, It's more than a cliché if one at all. -In fact I'd argue the common label "A distinction without a difference". Is a particular logical fallacy no better than if TheReturnOfPEB had used a strawman, non sequitur, an Appeal to Fear, etc.. to make a logical statement. To wit they are not acting logically.
And I would love to watch her smear the crap out of Trump at a debate.
No chance Trump debates again if it’s against Harris. He’s way too scared of a gasp woman making him look bad.
I’d love to see her or AOC. They’d both leave him gasping and eviscerated.
You know it wouldn't change anything so why waste the time?
She's probably the centrist dem to balance his social democracy platform while getting nominated.
U funny
He tried to legalize weed and make higher education free. He's Bernie Sanders-Lite.
LOL
Based on what I've seen most people could make a good president if they pick good folks to give them advice and don't act like douchebags.
At this point, a sack of potatoes would make a good president.
rolls for deception
I'm at this point, but unironically. Maybe we should reset back to what the president was always meant to be: a figurehead. Take away any unilateral decision making capabilities. They're only really supposed to have the bully pulpit.
Just a UK guy here, but she does seem like a pretty sensible swap. I know there's some controversy around her because of her time in the police system, but I haven't heard anything bad about her at all during her time as VP, she's basically been off the radar (compare that shit to Pence).
A couple good speeches here and there, some reasonable policies to offer people, and Biden's endorsement, and you've got a really solid replacement.
Yeah, it's not like it takes a lot to beat trump
We just keep running terrible candidates against him
No kidding. People are acting like we need to be finely tuned to capture Republican votes to beat him, but he's lost every election after the first and has substantial losses within his own party. There are more Democrats than Republicans, and the statewide candidates are winning in swing states. We just need to not put up a train wreck and stop alienating traditional Democratic voting blocks. People don't actually like Trump.
There was some chaos in her office in the initial days, if I recall, that may have left a bad impression. But I think that's not too unusual and can be overcome.
😴
But what do national polls say?
Edit: spoiler alert: nothing conclusive.
This was a national poll...
Did you have a typo or something?
What did you mean by "national poll" I don't think it means what you think it means
Sigh. What do polls of the whole nation say, you know, rather than just what people who were registered to vote Democratic. What does the country as a whole think? Is she more popular than Biden? Would more people vote for her in swing states? Is she more popular than Trump?
It's not really a strong endorsement of the Democratic deputy president to say that specifically Democrats think she might be OK to replace the president, is it? "People who like Democrats like a famous Democrat" just isn't a strong recommendation. Need more info.
Not only are you looking for this poll, the article even mentions what you're looking for...
Did you not read the article before dismissing it?
They can only fit so much in the headline...
6/10 Dems though Biden would be replaced, remember what Kamala is being compared to.
6/10 thinking shed make a good president is a positive move...
I'd suggest you start with the article, and if you still want more, look at the polls data directly
I asked what I thought was a really obvious question - about what the rest of the country thinks, because it's the one that matters and you started shouting at me for asking.
If it made you so cross, why not just not answer, or just politely say that there's more info in the article instead of ranting at me.
I see you quoted me more stats about what Democrats think. Thanks for the clarification. /s
To be honest I had already copied the part in the article you wanted, then figured you'd just ask for what's in the next paragraph.
It's honestly a lot easier when you read a headline and think "I need more info" to just read the article.
It's all right there in the article, and a professional wrote it.
If that's not enough, well, it's really not hard to interpret poll results directly. I do it all the time, been doing it for years.
It's a good skill if you care about politics, but you'll never learn how to fish if people keep handing you fish when you ask
Oh wow, you spent a lot of time and effort making fun of my question, disagreeing with my question, answering the question that's answered in the headline, telling me how great your analysis of the stats would be, finding some stats that you thought might answer my question and then instead of pressing paste on what you nearly admitted doesn't quite answer my question, ranting at me yet again for daring to ask it.
I mean, the Democrats are within spitting distance of losing to Trump, which I think is a crisis in most parts of American society and a heck of a lot of countries in the world, but hey, as long as we don't ask questions about whether a different leader would win, everything's fine? Right?
Honestly, I suspect that if they had found out that Harris is more popular than Biden or Trump on a national poll, that's absolutely the headline they would have gone with. 100%. This is a weak ass headline because it's a weak ass result, and I think if there was something unequivocal in there that supported Harris over Biden or Trump nationally, someone would be shouting it, not hiding it in paragraph seven about black voters who often lean Democrat or something.
Maybe you don't have to suspect and can just read the fucking article. Because you're wrong and are writing paragraphs of text about how you imagine things happen rather than just taking a minute out of your day to get the information you're requesting. Don't demand other people to be your assistant and then get pissy when they call you out for it.
Nah
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A new poll from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about 6 in 10 Democrats believe Kamala Harris would do a good job in the top slot.
Oakley Graham, a Democrat in Greenwood, Missouri, said while he is “pretty happy” with Biden’s accomplishments in office, he felt that he would be more excited to support Harris at the top of the ticket and that it was “about time” a woman becomes president.
Black adults –- a key contingent of the Democrats’ coalition and a group that remains relatively more favorable to Biden than others — are more likely than Americans overall to say that Harris would do well.
Bailey said the Democratic Party needs Harris and a running mate “who can really motivate people to go out to the polls” — a task that she’s skeptical Biden can do as effectively.
In the AP-NORC poll, which was conducted before Trump made Vance his vice presidential choice, 6 in 10 Americans don’t know enough about him to form an opinion.
The poll of 1,253 adults was conducted July 11-15, 2024, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population.
The original article contains 996 words, the summary contains 201 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
We don't need a majority of Democrats, we need a majority of voters.
She needs to go with Biden
Because?
Mostly because centrists will vote for Turnip over a woman of color for President.
She a POS cop that happens to be a female POC.
She would do just fine, but she'll never be elected. HRC had a better chance and failed...
Hilary was subject to one of the longest running smear campaigns I can remember. The right started pounding her years before she ever got near the Oval Office.
Hell, it's actually still ongoing, and she's retired.
edit: You may have noticed them pursuing a similar strategy with AOC too. They like to go after potential future dem leadership very early.
Add to that, she earned the resentment of Obama supporters in 2008 and Sanders supporters in 2016. And I bet Harris would bother to campaign in swing states.
AND she still probably would have won if Comey didn't drop another "but her emails" bombshell immediately before the election. It was completely inappropriate and allowed Trump to just barely squeak into office. One that had no legal teeth, and resulted in no legal issues after the election.
And she still won millions more votes, just in the wrong places.
That she won the popular vote and was within spitting distance of winning the EC despite all these issues should put to rest the idea that a woman can't win, but the "I'm not sexist, but" people keep using it as justification for only running straight white men. Not to mention that since then the biggest winning issue in politics seems to be abortion, so if anything the environment is even more primed to accept female leadership.
Yes, and the messaging that Kamala has repeatedly slept her way to the top with no other skills and is simultaneously inept and corrupt is definitely out there and now intensifying.
Too many people hate HRC. Kamala hasn't been in the spotlight for decades like HRC has.