I keep seeing some people trying to compare Kamala to Hillary and Kaine to Walz. Nothing could be further from the truth in practice.
HIllary Clinton was a die hard centrist and EXTREMELY unlikable. She was overly ambitious and had this "it's my turn" mentality. She leaned obnoxiously hard into her womanhood and called anyone who didn't like her exist. She actively alienated the left wing of her party to the point of antagonism, then had the gall to demand they vote for her.
Harris has, on the flip side, been mildly progressive, positioning herself as a triangulater between the center and the left. She's ambitious yes, but not overly so. Some will say she was coronated, but she actually has organic grassroots support, something that Hillary never did. The energy behind Clinton's campaign was that of Biden before he dropped out. A feeling of "ugh is this the best we can do" and holding our nose. She could barely fill a high school gymnasium at her rallies. Very few people were passionate for her, and those who were were, themselves, unlikable. They were irritating neoliberals and elitists who liked to lecture and condescend to people rather than meet them where they are. Who would rather lecture people about economic metrics and how they're wrong on the economy than to feel their pain. Harris has Bernie energy. She fill stadiums. She generates memes. She gives people hope and enthusiasm. her campaign feels like the democrats are getting back on track for the first time since the obama years. The energy of the two isn't comparable. The only similarity is that they're both women.
Likewise, the only similarity between Walz and Kaine is both are balding white guys. I mean, if you recall, I was very critical of Kaine in 2016. He was this moderate pro life democrat who doubled down on the most cringey elements of Hillary's campaign. His speech at the DNC involved machismo and being strong in the face of adversity. Rather than fix problems, something i expect out of progressives, kaine seemed to come from the camp that suffering builds character and we gotta be tough.
Meanwhile, Walz is compassionate. He eliminates problems. He's the dude who gives kids free school lunches while republicans talk about legalizing child labor so they can work off their lunch debt. He says that one person's socialism is merely another person's neighborliness. He's for good things, and frames them as "why yes, I'm for good things, what are you NOT for good things?" Quite frankly, Walz has a character that I find unimpeachable, and that I respect quite a bit, as a loudmouth who isn't afraid to get down in the dirt and care if im perceived as immoral by someone. Because he will just be so nice, and ingratiating, and frame things as "i'm for good things, are you not for good things?" He frames progressivism in a way where if you arent a progressive he kinda makes you look like a POS by comparison.
And that's how the Harris/Walz team comes off in general. Clinton/Kaine was basically, "we're here, we're insufferably moderate, a better world isn't possible, get used to it! Vote for us or else!" Harris/Walz was "why yes, we're gonna make the world a better place, what are you NOT for good things? because that's weird, why are our political opponents so weird?" Seriously, they're normalizing progressivism as "yeah this is basic humanity, how can you NOT be for this?" They take right wing attacks and turn them around on them where they look like pieces of crap. Clinton and Kaine kept trying to negotiate with and compromise with evil half way while screaming at their base for daring to want a better world. Harris and Walz are like, we're for good things and those other people who don't want good things are weird and creepy. Two totally opposite energies.
Seriously, Tim Walz is basically midwestern Bernie Sanders and Harris is gonna be at minimum as progressive as Biden. It's the best power couple ticket we were ever gonna get in 2024. Totally opposite energy.
I know some people are worried Harris/Walz will follow in Clinton's footsteps electorally. And yes, she very well could lose. But if she does, you know what? I'm gonna just say it. If this ticket doesn't win, NO DEM COULD WIN. In 2016, Clinton took an easily winnable situation and threw it into a woodchipper. Harris is taking a situation in which we're doomed, we're ####ed, and she's actually turning it around. Unlike Clinton, she's the underdog. Unlike Clinton though, I think that she'll pull it off. Just like Clinton lost her lead through arrogance, if anyone has Clinton 2016 energy this time, it's Trump. And let's say the election were held today. Harris is down 1.8 in PA, the tipping point state, which is about where Trump was in 2016 (although the tipping point there was NH at 0.6). Who win PA? Trump did. Who won michigan and wisconsin? Trump did.
Same thing could happen here. Polling is a lagging indicator. What that means is that polls are a snapshot for how people feel. Polls lag behind shift in opinion, because they poll people at a certain point of time, take days to come out afterward, and by then, people might shift.
Harris is on an obvious uphill trajectory. She went from being in the literal basement to being currently at Biden's peak and still rising. Honestly, if the election were held today, despite whatever formal odds I'd give Harris (currently 33%), I'd honestly say I'd favor her to actually win in terms of gut feeling alone. Because she has real energy. And those polls are gonna continue to go up and probably settle give or take around 50-50. And just like Clinton lost at a moment of weakness, all we need is for trump to lose in the same kind of scenario. heck, watching trump's campaign flail around post biden dropping out, I honestly think that trump is gonna lose his shirt here. Seriously, the GOP is stumbling around, making awkward comments about harris's race and looking like racist jack###es in the process, making weird comments about childless cat ladies, having a batcrap insane fundamentalist christian agenda. And they're up against the female equivalent of obama 2008 and this guy who makes progressivism look moderate. Really, ive always said it, we look like the "weird" ones, we lose, and clinton made us look out of touch and weird. We make the GOP look like the weird ones and we win. And Harris/Walz is doing that in a way Clinton/Kane never could have. Because they were weird and out of touch themselves. Trump actually appealed to normies given how weird they were.
Ya gotta appeal to people. And these guys are dead on with their political instincts. They're literally performing a miracle here and turning around what once was a no win situation. You can't even compare the two.
And even if they lose. At least they put up a good fight. Because Biden sure as heck wasn't. And if Clinton/Kaine is comparable to anything, it's Biden's energy pre dropping out. That's what happens when you run a wet blanket.
Every election is seemingly decided by which side has the energy. The more charismatic candidate almost always wins. Kennedy beat Nixon in 1960. Reagan beat Carter (and Carter had Biden energy). Clinton beat Bush. Bush beat Gore and Kerry. obama beat McCain and Romney (McCain and Romney were the right wing equivalents of Clinton/Biden, moderates no one liked). Trump beat Clinton. Biden beat Trump. Trump was gonna beat Biden in the rematch, and now Harris is seemingly stomping Trump. We keep the energy going, we win. We stagnate, we lose.
Harris has energy, Clinton never did. Harris motivates. Clinton demotivates. Harris will turn out the base and win independents. Clinton couldn't sell...uh...sex to a troop train, to paraphrase her husband, Bill Clinton. They're not comparable. And the difference between Kaine and Walz is even starker, given Walz is genuinely progressive and Kaine was even more centrist than Clinton was. So yeah. Not even comparable.
No comments:
Post a Comment