Comment on [deleted]
thrawn@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I have long trusted, alongside polls, Professor Allan Lichtman’s system of keys to the White House. The system uses thirteen true/false questions and asserts that American voters vote for president based on the governing performance of the incumbent party. It has been right 11 times in a row, if you believe that the Supreme Court allowed Bush to win even if recounts were going to turn it in Gore’s favor. It correctly predicted Trump’s 2016 victory along a number of other upsets.
Per this system, Harris has a less lenient board but is still probably favored at this point. She has lost incumbency and unfortunately does not bring charisma (defined as broad appeal past their party). Nonetheless, if the remaining undecided keys fall as they stand now, she would win in October.
In my opinion, her candidacy could be better than Biden’s if this allows Biden to focus on securing a ceasefire in Gaza instead of campaigning. This would allow a foreign military success, making up for the loss of incumbency. She may also hurt RFK’s campaign if there are a good deal of protest voters who are simply tired of two elderly men (and thus picked a slightly younger elderly man).
Because of this system, I was very very worried about Harris replacing Biden. Professor Lichtman’s streak is unparalleled and he has little skin in the game since he is not a pollster doing this for a living. Thus it’s difficult to see it as pure luck. Lichtman himself believes it’s still winnable though, and that has been relieving to hear.
Outside of the system, I can see how Harris could win. She polls better. She’s younger and can be a reasonably decent speaker. She’s certainly more exciting than Biden, and has more energy and time to campaign. With the media focused on her now, she could get her message out quickly and powerfully. I can see her winning by a significant margin.
If I’m honest, I’m not totally optimistic, but there are many factors in her favor. I would’ve felt better if she had the charismatic appeal of Kelly or Whitmer. It’s fine though. Her strengths of being a coherent non-fascist that has never been found legally liable for rape should help separate her from her opponent, and she’ll demolish him in a debate if he develops the courage to show up.
Asafum@feddit.nl 3 months ago
The one thing I’m kinda worried about, that I just learned yesterday, is her tendency to do “word salad” when she just doesn’t know what to say. So we get things like (paraphrasing) “the importance of the passage of time is important, for the passage of time is the passage of time and it’s important.”
She tends to do that a lot apparently :/
thrawn@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I have to say I am too. She’s had a few incidents of odd speech patterns; if not this, the poor soundbites like weirdly explaining things (“Russia is a country” or “do not come”). Trump’s word salad is so normalized that he won’t be scrutinized for it. There will probably be sexist comments on it as well.
I hope she gets new speechwriters and a bit of training on what to say instead. It’s probably a lot to hope that she can quickly override this pattern, given it’s likely something she’s done all her life, but her duties as VP are relatively minimal and the campaign can afford speech training. She’s better than Trump either way, but being consistently on point would be useful