Ephoron

Harris would be stupid to alienate Jewish voters going into the election.

On what evidence do you believe this. All the evidence provided thus far shows the opposite to be the case. The overwhelming majority of Democrats want to end arms sales to Israel. By what twisted mathematics does gaining a majority of supporters risk losing the vote?

To do this Harris needs to take away voters from Trump

You've provided no evidence at all for this, and all the available evidence demonstrates the contrary.

Just declaring things to be the case isn't an argument. You have to bring evidence to bear.

Harris coming out against Israel will give voters to Trump, not take them away from Trump

Again. No evidence, and all the available evidence is to the contrary.

Harris must not come out against Israel before elected or she won't get elected

Again, all the evidence given shows the opposite.

The vast majority of Democrat voters and a smaller group of Republican voters want to stop arms sale to Israel.

A huge proportion of key voters in swing states want to stop arms sales to Israel.

Voters angry at the Democrats for not stopping arms sales to Israel are actively saying they will abstain or vote Trump.

No group, poll, or campaign has come out to claim they'll vote Trump if the Democrats stop arms sales to Israel.

All this evidence supports the view that stopping arms sales to Israel will gain Democrats a massive number of additional votes, some of which will be from otherwise Trump voters.

You've provided no evidence to the contrary.

I don't agree that the Dems need to change policy to win. Sure they could pick up some votes from the left but would sacrifice votes from other areas to achieve that.

What makes you think that, given the evidence to the contrary?

At the end of the day, those protesting will need to decide, Trump or not Trump.

Again, why are thousand of voters responsible for keeping Trump out, but not the Democrats?

Or, a slightly different question, why do you pin your hopes on these thousands and not on the Democrats? Do you think they're more likely to change their minds? Do you think people are actually going to vote in favour of a party committed to facilitating genocide, often of their distant relations, than the Democrats are to change policy.

Don't you think that's an absolutely devastating indictment of democracy? That no amount of voting block pressure can actually get a party to change policy.

work from the inside on changing policy.

I don't understand what this means. Voters vote. They don't control party policy "from the inside", they just vote on stuff.

If they don't, and they help Trump get elected, things will be infinitely worse for the Palestinians.

And again, blaming the electorate for being moral, not blaming the Democrats for refusing to listen.

The clarity of your plan was not in question.

I asked a very simple question about that plan. Why do you think you can change the minds of all these people who currently are not going to vote, but you don't think you can change the minds of the Democrat strategists?

You seem to be implying that getting Democrats to actually change policy to help them win is a lost cause, but then have this tremendous optimism toward changing the minds of thousands of people, many of whom are withholding their vote in protest against genocide. I asked why.

I did not ask "could you repeat your plan". This is a discussion forum, it should have been obvious you might expect some scrunity of an argument put forth on it. If your intention is to ignore "naysayers" then might I suggest a discussion forum is not the best place for you to be posting. Maybe a blog, or Substack?

That's a good point. There may a reason in that.

a vice president can't just change policy against the wishes of the president. Nor do they regularly deviate in public opinion.

Apologies for my lack of clarity. I was using 'Harris' as shorthand for 'the Harris campaign'. I mean to ask why they wouldn't change policy... The campaign team.

I'm not arguing that she will or won't... only that she can't right now regardless of her actual stance.

You're not 'arguing' anything at all. You're just declaring it to be the case with so much as a scrap of evidence offered.

All the evidence provided indicates a sizeable demographic of ex-Democrat voters who would readily vote Democrat again if they changed policy on arms sales.

No polling data from anywhere indicates that keeping arms sales is the key to the swing states.

All polling data that's been provided indicates that banning arms sales is the key to the swing states.

So what is tying Harris's hands exactly? Spell it out.

a ideal world GOP eats itself when Trump loses again and the DNC is now effectively replacing the GOP as the conservative party.

Best answer I've had yet. I'm not convinced, but at least it's a plan with an actual mechanism that isn't contrary to reality.

The reason I'm not convinced is that it would require politics to be far less Machiavellian than it is. All the while it's in their best interests to have Trump-the-devil as their opponent, they'll push that narrative, true or not. I think the Democrats will be too scared to push too far to the centre for the very reasons you've given, they might loose support to an actual left-wing and their donors simply won't risk that. The Democrat's job is to suck energy from actual left-wing campaigns. To do they they need to stay left, but not too left.

And, of course, they need to convince millions of people more progressive than they are, to vote for them regardless because "the other guy...".

But still, I respect your plan. Hope I'm wrong, and it works.

Vote the gop out to the void and turn on the DNC next.

The question I keep asking and get no reply to is, how?

How do we "turn on the DNC next". In your scenario, we've just given them the unequivocal message that they can be assured of our votes no matter what their policies are, even supporting genocide doesn't loose them votes, so long as the Republicans are worse.

So, by what mechanism do we "turn on the DNC"?

Why would they listen to a single protest, campaign, or speech knowing that their votes are secure no matter what?

I can never tell if you people are in bad faith or just legitimately so detached from a realistic view of politics that that sounds profound to you.

I have to limp my ass and beg people door to door just to fucking vote against fascism.

Rather than beg your party to adopt the policies all the data shows would actually win then this election?

What on earth makes you think the best 'evelenth hour' strategy is to try and persuade thousands of people to vote, but that it's apparently "too late" to persuade a single executive to change one policy?