Former Ronald Reagan staffers endorse Kamala Harris for president
Former Ronald Reagan staffers endorse Kamala Harris for president
More than a dozen who served under Republican president quote his call for a ‘Time for Choosing’
More than a dozen former Ronald Reagan staff members have joined dozens of other Republican figures endorsing the Democratic nominee and vice-president, Kamala Harris, saying their support was “less about supporting the Democratic party and more about our resounding support for democracy”.
You're viewing a single thread.
Who thinks this helps?
They’re trying to reach conservatives that don’t support Trump.
They're alienating people who hate Reagan.
Are they? The campaign is not speaking in support of the Reagan administration. Harris is supported by the former administration over a corrupt and narcissistic megalomaniac.
Personally, I don’t see this as anything other than validation that Trump is that bad.
If you get endorsed by Hitler it reflects pretty badly on you.
Putin endorsed Biden, and now Harris. Do you honestly think that he wants Democrats in charge during his invasion of Ukraine? Politics is a game.
Right, his endorsement doesn't help. That's my point? Liberals shouldn't be cheering because Reaganites endorsed Harris.
Who said Liberals were cheering? This is aimed at disenfranchised conservatives.
Do you think conservatives read The Guardian? This is for internal consumption, to make liberals think "wow even Reaganites are on our side, we must be doing something right!"
The Guardian is a newspaper. They are just covering the news.
Other outlets are covering this also, including conservative ones.
You are way too eager to find a conspiracy here... I promise you, this British newspaper isn't run by and for American Democrats.
no one is saying that is, but what queermunist is doing that you are failing to do is annilise the bias of the source, and consider the reasons for why they wrote something and the way they wrote it ... this is basic media literacy
There's no conspiracy? This is just liberals telling other liberals about the "good news"
"disenfranchised conservatives" he says
I live in NY. It’s a blue state with ~3M Republicans. Most of the ones I know are only in it for financial reasons (large portfolios, business owners, etc.). They voted for Trump in his first term, and are very reluctant to vote for him again. There are more of them than you think.
that is not what "disenfranchised" means at all. These people are business owners with large portfolios?? They are objectively some of the most enfranchised people in the country. They're literally sitting on their thumbs in their bathtubs of money deciding which genocidaire would be better for their wallets? How is this a disenfranchised population? This is objectively the opposite. Fuck them.
Anyone catering to these very enfranchised sociopaths for votes, rather than to (and while actively repressing and brow-beating) those who are demanding an end to the bipartisan US-financed and US-armed genocide in Palestine, and rather than to the huge portion of actual left-wing voters and poor working class voters who are moving to 3rd parties or among the 35-50% who have stopped voting because of how actually disenfranchised and abandoned by this imperialist-corporate-conglomerate pretending to be two different parties they are --- anyone catering to the former group instead of the latter two groups is my enemy
The liberals cheering is what told me the liberals where cheering. I mean ... Haris even gloated that Ronald Reagon himself would vote for her.
as for disenfranchised conservitives, this is a group that does not exist, like both halvs of the uniparty pander to the conservitive.
That's a good question, but I think Putin's being honest. Trump is more likely to try to negotiate a peace deal, but if that goes badly, he's also much more likely to order some off-the-wall shit like giving Ukraine ICBMs and permission to use them. Remember this was the guy who was presented with a range of options to retaliate against Iranian sabre-rattling, and for seemingly no reason chose the most extreme, drone striking their top general! There's lots of reason to not want Trump in charge.
What makes you think Trump would negotiate peace? He’s already said Israel should finish the job and stop recording their atrocities. He also repealed restrictions on Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory. Netanyahu was so grateful, he named a settlement after Trump in Golan Heights.Accidental and unrelated reply. My mistake.
I'm not saying he's a dove or anything, but he doesn't really give a shit about NATO therefore isn't terribly invested in protecting the Zelensky regime, and he has been consistent about saying the war should be ended so Ukrainians survive, [which, to be clear, I doubt he personally cares about, but it's his platform] and even said this when he was pressed with the insanely unprofessional and ridiculous bait question "Do you want Ukraine to win?" at the debate.
Anyway, it's no guarantee, he's a very unstable and erratic guy, but I think he sees the war as a waste of money and would prefer friendlier relations with Russia.
Sorry my reply was unrelated. I’m also discussing Israel in another thread on this post.
I think the only way Trump would negotiate peace for Ukraine/Russia would include relinquishing Ukrainian land to Russia, and would very likely not include the safe return of the tens of thousands of abducted Ukrainians.
No worries about the Israel part
I would say that yes, it would certainly involve reliquishing land, that's the reality of the situation. I don't think there's any credence to the "abducted Ukrainian" story. On the off chance you mean POWs, they would surely be returned. If you mean the children who Russia evacuated from the war zones that it controlled, most likely the children with a surviving guardian will be reunited with them as has already happened, and the children who can't be reunited with a guardian (for any number of reasons) will wind up in the local foster system in Donbass. The Ukrainian government loves crying wolf about being the victim of a supposed genocide by Russians, but here as ever there simply isn't adequate reason to believe it's true.
To be clear, I'm not saying Trump would take any action an anglosphere liberal would approve of (though I think his stance on Ukraine is the one thing he supports that is surprisingly reasonable if it's true), I'm just trying to explain as best as I understand it the things Putin would take into consideration. This is of course all in the "pro" column for him, but it's also extremely unreliable (Trump could easily be lying about his position, though I believe he isn't) and doesn't make up for the much worse possibility of Trump dramatically increasing US involvement. As things stand, Russia is surely going to win the war, so it would be poor strategy to rock the boat with the wildcard Trump currently represents with respect to this specific issue.
I mean I am not saying that his endorsement is a good sign, however I see no reason not to trust his endorsement on face value. It seems to be more work and more conspericy boarding to say that this is some 7d chess to get trump back when there are reasons he would want a haris win
Are you aware that the Republicans in Congress refused to vote in favor of Ukraine aid? Democrats had to add Israel to the bill to get them to agree.
Putin wants Trump. It’s not a question which party is on his side.
You keep talking domestic policy, but you have not given a reason on why Putin cannot be trusted on his endorsement. You are also missing the point that trump is a less stable commander in cheif, and may oppose Russian intrests elsewhere not just ukraine
He’s spent more time in private with Putin, sometimes refusing recording, more than any other President.
I doubt he’s planning on putting wrinkles in ol’ Vladimir’s panties.
I read it as the neoliberal warhawks are enthusiastic about a more level-headed maintainer of Empire who has promised the most lethal military in the world and to always support Israel.
Believe it or not, the President does more than determine support for Israel.
Yep, but the part that specifically draws the Reaganite fascists to Kamala is her promise to maintain the most lethal military in the world. Forever wars and endless profits for the MIC, endless support for Imperialism.
Having read about Hitler's meeting with the military heads that line was bonechilling when she said it
And Trump has already proven to support Israel’s eradication of Palestinians and expansion into Gaza and the West Bank. Israel is not the point of comparison between them, although Trump is worse for Palestinians.
More money in the hands of the lower and middle classes stimulates the economy and drives stock prices. The middle class is considered the most wasteful class. That consumption drives consumerism, which increases stock value.
And Trump has already proven to support Israel’s eradication of Palestinians and expansion into Gaza and the West Bank. Israel is not the point of comparison between them. Trump is worse for Palestinians.
Trump is the same as Harris with respect to genocide. He can't just buy bombs on his personal card and ship them via DHL, this is a bipartisan effort because the basis is economic, not moral.
More money in the hands of the lower and middle classes stimulates the economy and drives stock prices. The middle class is considered the most wasteful class. That consumption drives consumerism.
No idea why you're bringing this up.
Have you compared Biden and Trump’s tax proposals? They’re extremely different. Stabilizing the lower and middle classes will result in more consumerism, which in turn helps stock prices. Middle-class conservative stockholders or business owners would benefit from Biden’s tax proposal. It’s the $400k+ earners that get hit the hardest.
over a corrupt and narcissistic megalomaniac.
boy I hate to tell you this, but you're not escaping that by voting for the democrats. the establishment parties are personifications of all of the worst vices and cruelties of the imperialist capitalist class of war mongers, racketeers, and liars which keep the globe under their boot with 800+ bipartisan military bases and CIA blacksite torture camps, and bipartisan Hunger Plans and bipartisan competing to see who can do more genocide faster.
Biden's such a corrupt narcissistic megalomaniac he wouldn't even step down while his brain was visibly leaking from his ears his own party including the speaker of the house (also being one of the most corrupt, narcissistic megalomaniacs in congress) was demanding he do so. He only did when the billionaire imperialists that finance the democrats (and who they work for, who both parties work for) pulled their funding.
I mean... yes... there are quite a few reasons I would not feel good voting for harris but there are 3 reasons I cannot in good contious vote for her, the first is the endorsments from Bush and Cheney, the second is this Reagon Endorsement, the third is she has publicly talked about class colaberation.
The people who are saying this is a deal breaker weren't going to vote for Harris anyway.
Trump is a threat to democracy, stands in direct opposition to the rule of law, embraces authoritarianism, undermines national security, alienates allies while emboldening enemies and rivals, enables nutcases and violent extremists, has called for the constitution to be thrown out, has stated he intends to use the government to persecute his political rivals, has declared that members of his own administration should be executed for being more loyal to the country than to him, and managed to get the Supreme Court to declare the president to be above the law. And that's barely scratching the surface.
Even for conservatives, that list sounds very bad. Bad enough to outweigh major policy disagreements. It really shouldn't be that hard to understand why some of them might be willing to endorse the only viable alternative.
Trump is a threat to democracy
America doesn't have democracy in the first place.
Bush/Cheney STOLE the 2000 election. That was the biggest threat to democracy in my lifetime and now the Dems are welcoming them into the fold.
The Harris campaign has not extended an invitation to the Bush administration to come back and take over the White House if she wins. Nor is there some great wave of enthusiasm on the right for Harris, it's just them endorsing the only viable alternative to Trump.
And if Bush v Gore was the biggest threat to democracy in your lifetime, you must have been dead for the last four years. Florida in 2000 was a clusterfuck whose outcome was always going to be determined by how the votes were counted because the margin between the candidates was less then the number of disputed ballots. But after it was over, the country went back to business as usual.
Trump spread lies about the election being stolen, plotted a blatant coup attempt, incited a riot that attempted to overthrow the election by force, and after failing to hold onto power. But unlike in 2000, this didn't stop with one election, Trump and pals have continued to push conspiracy theories and coordinate at the local level to disrupt the entire democratic process. You've got armed nut jobs threatening poll workers, and local election rules being written specifically to maximize the disruption they can cause to elections. It's now the norm for Trump supporters to see elections as inherently invalid if their side loses, with a significant number of those people being willing to support illegal or violent actions if it will give them the win they want. Even if Trump loses, the damage he's inflicted to American democracy will likely last for decades.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot
If the law had been followed Florida in 2000 would've done to gore.
Things went back to "business as usual" because the people who stole the election WON and successfully got control of the country, and what they did with that power was start 2 wars and murder a million+ people in the middle east and legitimize torture. That is worse than anything trump has done.
The damage that reagan/bush/cheney did to this country and to the world is incalculable. The dems disagree with me on this and that's why I'm not a dem and I can't support the dems
I'm not hear to defend Bush v Gore, the Bush administration, Republicans, Democrats, or anything else.
Fuck it, ok, fine, Bush v Gore was worse. So what? Unless you have a time machine, there isn't anything we can do about that. But Trump poses a threat right now, one which will get much worse if he manages to get back into power. That can still be prevented. If the price that comes at is the knowledge that a few loathsome individuals agreed with millions of people like me on this one narrow choice, that's a small price to pay.
We could expect Harris to denoucne the endorsements and tell them to F-off instead of reveling in the ensorsements, that would be a start
https://lemmy.ml/post/20396714/13736665
The long term effects of voting "lesser of 2 evils" pushes everyone to the right.
I'm not willing to get pushed anymore, if you are then just accept that you're center-right or far-right at this point. I'm not, I'm a leftist and I'm going to stay a leftist
The long term effects of authoritarians consolidating their power and eliminating the last remnants of democracy and the rule of law is that it no longer matters if any of us are left or right. I'll take having a system that can still be changed over being trapped in under dictatorial rule but taking comfort in the fact that I've remained ideologically pure.
And no, choosing the best viable candidate doesn't just lead inevitably to a shift to the right. If that were the case, we wouldn't be talking about people on the right endorsing someone to their left. The fact that Democrats have chosen electable candidates when Republicans chose Trump loyalists and MAGA nutcases is the main reason why Republicans have underperformed since 2018, and why they keep sabotaging their own efforts fighting with their own party members. Their most recent victories are largely due to courts they packed with right wing judges, something that will only get worse if they win, but which will be gradually undone if they lose.
But this is an argument that's always raging on this site. That particular dead horse has been reduced to a fine paste. I doubt anyone's going to be swayed at this point.
I mean odd that you KNOW none of these people where going to vote for Harris but these endorsments will get people to vote for Harris from the trump camp. I mean I would argue that there are people who remember past political actions and do not want to suport someone also suported by ghools, and this was either the last straw, or enough that they felt there was some alterer motive here.
Second, have you seen any trump suporter, or someone thinking about suporting trump they are unlikely to be pulled away.
third, threat to democracy? I mean I hate to break it to you but at best the US is an Oligopoly, and even then I would argue the dems are just a few steps behind. As for the the SCOTUS, what is stopping biden from using the above the law power... or Haris, why is this only a concern when trump might use it
fourth, you have to relise that DICK CHENEY endorsing your canidate is not going to be a good look, especialy reveling in it. the better political move would be to use his endorsement to open up a conversation about all the evil he did, and the farther promotion of the Unitary Executive (Really started by Reagon and his staffers... who also endorsed harris) leading us into the mess we are in today, and to shove that endorsement where the sun dont shine
What are they going to do about it?
Please say campaign for electoral reform in their respective states.
I mean I hate Reagan with a passion you'll rarely fine equaled and this doesn't make me has a 1 second in still voting for her. Frankly I think it's weird that anyone would. I mean I'm also endorsing Harris and I think Reagan staffers should probably be executed.
why though? there is a large untapped market to the left of the Democrats, that they constantly ignore instead focusing on trying to just BE the republicans and take the fictional moderate.
In reality here everyone in that space has decided, and is not going to be swayed a large majority of them are with trump, They should move back to ATLEAST new deal politics but expand it to all not just white americans, that will both re-expand there voting window and allow for a diferentiated base
because their interests don't allow it. Their donors and the people they work for, recruit from, and get hired by after leaving office, are all the billionaire imperialists that benefit from exactly what the democrats are doing and have been. It's in the base structure of the democrat party. A lot of times these capitalists donate to the democrats, then vote republican. Both parties work for the same class of capitalist imperialists in whose interest they are so entrenched, they literally can't do anything else but fly to the right and become more and more indistinguishable from each other as they both compete for who can be better at committing genocide and who can be more fascist on immigration and the border concentration camps and also militarily and operationally abroad
The only way to break the duopoly is to throw weight behind a 3rd party (the further left the better, PSL or greens if you're a liberal or your state is strong for it and you like that idea), which would starve the democrats of the margin they need to ever get power, and force a reorientation where the ruling class would have to float a reformist "labor" party to keep people from further radicalizing and flooding to the socialists away from the open-fanged republicans, who would remain as the only real political force when the mouth-closed-smiling but just-as-fanged democrats, entrenched in their position, can no longer cruise-control on "not being the republicans." Which they already are in most ways, and in the ways they wear a mask of not being they're totally feckless and actively capitulate in order to drum up more fear about the republicans to scare people into voting for them without doing anything to earn those votes (Obama had both houses of congress. He could have codified abortion rights and LGBTQ civil rights protections into law then and there. He didn't. He also gave away a supreme court seat. And Biden has not only not forcefully pushed to expand and pack the courts, but has actively denounced the idea as "politicizing the courts" as if that ship isn't already past the horizon. And has done fuck-all to stop the book-burnings, anti-LGBTQ laws, criminalizations of abortion, etc that are currently happening under a democrat president. They don't care about any of us and never will, and it will continue to get worse under the duopoly).
The ruling class floating this "labor" party would itself cause the democrat party to split in half, with half hedging their bets and pouring into the 'labor' party and the farthest-right establishment remnants stopping pretending they're anything else and joining the republicans. Which would then "democrat-ize" the "labor" party and alienate their left wing who were trying to escape those same people and interests into joining with the socialists. This is why I say throw weight behind a socialist 3rd party. Because then you actually have a growing counterweight pushing forward against this rupturing contradiction and highlighting how badly these people play politics, as the establishment and their bourgeois politicians are scrambling in retreat to reorient and reconstitute politically, having obviously grown so entrenched and corrupt and complacent they've forgotten how to play politics.
I would like to add that the Democrat party stance on gun control only hurts minorities and LGBT from defending themselves, as rich white liberals are sheltered from any problems the actual working class face.
they love to fear-monger about Project 2025 (Which is a real threat) while disarming the people who need firearms the most. "Trust the police, you do not need weapons of war" while they give speeches with armed security details nearby at all times. Both parties do not want an armed working class
Taking one vote from another candidate is worth two votes from someone who is not voting, or who is voting for a non-viable third party.
I know plenty of people who wanted to vote for Kennedy but will probably vote for Trump now that he’s out. This group is likely to listen to former Reagan staffers and republican presidents that they liked.
except the slice of the pie being argued over is so small now, you have to get the group of people who vote republican, but are willing to conseve of voting for the democrat, and then pull them off ...
the math does not add up when to the left of democrats there is a large untapped market, you can see some of this by the lesser evilism argumentation, that there are people once agian near the drop off point of being able to approve of the democratic canidate. Even one step to the left would open up a large amount of voters back up, aswell as father sure up and engage the base, allowing for a more energetic and larger voter turnout.
also agian... the staffers and cheney should be enough given no denouncement or rejection of the endorsement to get anyone who was alive during those times who was opposed to them to keep from supporting harris, or atleast question the suport
The issue with appealing to the left is how fractured it is. Various factions will say whatever policies are presented are not left enough, and still refuse to vote. It’s hard to predict from the campaign’s perspective. Whereas they are unlikely to lose votes from obtaining the support of conservatives while possibly pulling votes from the other side.
I mean thats bullshit, because they are being told move left, and they are saying "well we dont know how left so we are going to move right vote for us your your terrible" that is not the way to handle this. You start to move left and you will gain more voters, and if you keep moving you will find the point that satifies most of them.
You are very likely to lose votes by doing this, see the decreased voter turn out, and the varuable voter turn out, you are losing people as they stop approving of you, and the likelyhood of you gaining new voters shrinks as you chace a narrower and narrower market
You are talking about long term consequences. Like capitalists who only look to the current quarter’s profits, politicians only look to the current election.
A smaller voter base is easier to appeal to. Both parties have relatively small voter bases and no competition because of the first past the post system and the electoral college.
It’s a numbers game. There are more active voters in the middle that would consider voting for Harris than on the far left.
the reason there are more active voters in the middle is the ones to the left see no gain in voting for either mainstreem, once you loose appeal you cannot draw people to vote, this is a fundimentaly flawed stratagy that disposesses the left
I saw someone theorizing that this helps Republicans down ballot. They give the Dems the presidency, but having more Republicans showing up to vote helps house/senate/whatever local elections swing Republican.
Very spicy take: This helps Donald Trump because it reinforces the idea that Donald Trump is not colluding with the uniparty establishment.
Liberal protection clause: I do not support Donald Trump.
That's actually an interesting idea. Since they're going to continue to control the Supreme Court anyway they can continue to implement their policy goals on the state level even if they don't have the Presidency.
Surely if we go right one more time the mythical moderate republicans will reveal themselves and vote us. Just one more genocide, we got this
It literally does though. Forget our personal politics for a moment. I don't think there's a single voter already planning to vote for Kamala Harris who would stay home because the staffers of a long-dead president support her. Keep in mind, Harris and her campaign have zero control over who officially endorses her. And even among the people who are not solidly behind her, many see her as the obvious only sane choice and are planning an anti-Trump vote no matter what.
But on the other side, I could definitely see centrists and Republicans swayed by what they view as the administration of "the greatest president ever" (fuck Reagan) denouncing Trump and supporting Harris. They may not even vote for her, but if they stay home this could literally tip the election for Kamala Harris.
There are a lot of voters who suspect that there's no difference between the two parties. Moves like this only ensure they stay home and don't vote.
I do.
I know people who voted for Trump because they've always voted Republican. Republican is their team, so they voted Republican. They assume Trump, as a Republican, will continue with standard Republican policies (which is generally true). They don't like him as a person but just don't pay too much attention to it.
If you mostly ignore Trump and just think of him as a generic Republican it makes sense. I was planning on voting for Biden before he dropped out because Democratic policy is generally what I'm voting for. Biden dropping out and Harris stepping in doesn't really change my voting plan. I'm still voting Democrat, I'm still voting Harris. Is Harris my favorite choice? No. Is the Democratic platform my perfect platform? No. But is it the best choice given the options? Absolutely. (And I don't say that as horribly negative thing, there are A LOT of positives from Harris/Democrats and I'm glad/excited to vote for her.)
BUT we know Trump isn't a generic Republican and people can't ignore EVERYTHING he's done. Jan 6 being a big one. If you're a Republican voter now you're stuck. You can't vote for Trump. But you want to vote Republican.
You're a generic Republican voter. You see Bush admins, Regan admins, Cheney all say they're voting for Harris. You voted for them previously. That gives you the opening to vote for Harris. That helps.
You're contradicting yourself.
You're voting for Harris because you'll vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what.
Republicans are going to vote for Trump because he's on the Republican ticket, because they vote for the Republican no matter what.
But consider that there are independents who suspect there's no difference between the two parties, and so they're thinking about staying home or voting third party. Moves like this only convince them that there's no reason to vote for Harris because all politicians are the same.
It's not a contradiction, it's a focus on Republicans.
I'm saying that endorsements like these convince Republican voters to vote for Harris.
For those who think there is no difference between the parties it may be less helpful. However if you're truly standing in the middle, watching one side cross over to the other and only ever one side crossing over to the other, that should give you an idea of at least which way to start looking.
Of course I understand the cynic who just says everyone is just flip flopping around. For those folks endorsements aren't the argument to make. Republicans voting for Democrats means they must be the same. In these cases it's better to focus on policy or the individual. If I were an undecided voters who endorsed who wouldn't sway me. Show me the policies, that's what I'm looking for.
I’m saying that endorsements like these convince Republican voters to vote for Harris.
I don't think they do. Think about yourself - could any endorsement convince you to vote for Trump? Because that's the situation Republicans are in. They're as committed to their nominde as you are to yours.
I'm telling you, with first hand experience, that they do.
And again, no, an endorsement alone isn't ever going to convince me. There are multiple things that can convince people.
Some people are going to stick with what they've always stuck with.
Some people are going to focus on personality, "Have a beer with" .
Some are going to look at policy.
And of course no one is simple, so it's usually a combination of the above.
But those Republicans who have always voted Republican, who finally see Trump for what he is, are looking for an alternative. They're not risk takers. They aren't just going to vote Harris if they've decided they can't vote Trump. If however they see others from their crowd do it, they are likely to follow along.
Your anecdotal experience isn't a strong data point. Just saying.
Who thinks this helps?
I think this helps. We're talking opinion here. But to add data,
“I don’t know if we convince somebody to go Trump-to-Harris,” Duncan said. “I think we go from convincing somebody just sitting at home, not voting for anybody, to voting for Kamala Harris.”
That's who I'm talking about. Those disillusioned with Trump. "I can't vote Trump. I won't vote for Biden or Harris." But with enough time and endorsements, maybe they will.
But this can also convince weak Harris supporters to not vote for her. I'm not convinced this helps more than it hurts.
It is funny to think about people sitting at home being convinced to show up to vote because of a bunch if hasbeen mummies.
I mean endorsements are weird.
Who was sitting at home not voting and saw the Taylor Swift endorsement and thought, yeah, now I'm voting for Harris.
Or who was not voting and saw the Swift endorsement and thought, yeah, I should vote.
But I also don't see someone leaning voting for Harris, seeing someone else vote for Harris and then decide, no, now I won't. Someone only swayed by endorsements are probably low information voters. They're not going to see someone voting for Harris as a negative thing for Harris.