Young Americans see Kamala Harris as the “candidate of change”

“Poll Finds Harris Rising as She Challenges Trump on Change” (NYT):

A national Times/Siena poll found Kamala Harris with a slim lead over Donald J. Trump. Voters were more likely to see her, not Mr. Trump, as a break from the status quo.

Ms. Harris, who is 59, was seen by a wide margin, 61 percent to 29 percent, as the change candidate among voters who are not white. Younger voters see her as the change candidate by a lopsided margin: 58 percent to 34 percent.

Is this the first time in history that an incumbent has been able to persuade American voters that he/she/ze/they is the “change candidate”?

On the other hand, maybe the perception is legitimate. Let’s try to figure out what might change. First, if Kamala Harris has a good idea right now, what is stopping her from implementing it? Is Joe Biden the obstacle? The person who is actually running the U.S. is the obstacle? Why is this person obstructing productive change from a member of his/her/zir/their own party?

For the sake of this post, though, let’s assume that Harris-Walz do have big new ideas and somehow they are being prevented from implementing them.

The principal passion for Democrats is abortion care so let’s look at that first… Kamala Harris is promising a federal law that would legalize abortion care for pregnant people at all stages of a pregnant person’s pregnancy. That would be a change, at least in stages that outlaw abortion care after a certain number of weeks of a pregnant person’s pregnancy. But Joe Biden has also promised this kind of legislation so we’re left with two questions: (a) is expanding abortion care at the federal level an example of “change”, and (b) why hasn’t the Biden-Harris administration done it?

A close second to abortion care is a passion for open borders. But Kamala Harris was Joe Biden’s “Border Czar” so we shouldn’t expect any change in this area.

At least among young Democrats, Queers for Palestine is just as important as open borders. Perhaps this is an example of real change. It looks as though Harris-Walz are promising to force Israel to surrender to the Islamic Resistance Movement (“Hamas”). “Walz, Appealing to Muslim Voters, Says War in Gaza ‘Must End Now’” (NYT, 10/3/2024):

Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, on Thursday made a direct appeal to Muslim voters, decrying “staggering and devastating” destruction in Gaza and saying that the war between Israel and Hamas should be brought to an immediate end.

“This war must end, and it must end now,” Mr. Walz said in a three-minute video address to the virtual “Million Muslim Votes: A Way Forward” event, which was hosted by the group Emgage Action.

As Hamas was elected by Palestinians on a platform of military conquest and has promised to defeat Israel militarily, the only possible “immediate ends” for the Gaza fighting are (1) Israel switches to US-/UK-style destruction of the enemy population until the Palestinians surrender unconditionally as the Japanese and Germans were forced to, or (2) Israel surrenders to Hamas. I don’t think (1) is what Mx. Walz had in mind, despite his/her/zir/their background as a combat hero. That leaves us with (2), in which the U.S. uses its own military power to destroy Israel, including its Muslim citizens, unless Israel surrenders. The Biden-Harris administration hasn’t done that yet.

Kamala Harris has promised to make housing more affordable. But that’s not change because it was also the Biden-Harris plan, according to whitehouse.gov in September 2021:

(the cost of buying a house, factoring in purchase price and interest rate, has roughly doubled since the Biden-Harris administration implemented its plan)

Kamala Harris promises to give first-time homebuyers (“fresh idiots”?) $25,000. I guess that would be change, but if it is a good idea why hasn’t it been done?

Circling back to the original theme… can the Harris-Walz campaign be credited with an unprecedented achievement in the area of voter psychology/propaganda? Or, given that older voters aren’t as likely to be persuaded that the incumbent represents “change”, can we attribute their success to the declining IQ here in the U.S.? Note that U.S. IQ remains higher than in places that have been in the news lately (source):

• Iran: 83
• Venezuela: 83
• Lebanon: 82
• Qatar (Hamas funder and host country): 80
• “Palestine”: 80
• Yemen: 67

Loosely related… A reminder that the war (not the recent battles) in Gaza started well for the “Arab” side (the term “Palestinians” hadn’t yet come into use) back in 1948. I guess one could argue that, after 76 years, the war is still going well for the forces opposing Israel in that they’ve enjoyed tremendous population growth and increasing political support worldwide. The original military objective of destroying Israel hasn’t been achieved yet (maybe Harris-Walz can make it happen?), but the forces opposing Israel managed to create a group of approximately 6 million Arabs who are entitled to unlimited food, health care, education, etc. funded by taxpayers in the US and EU. On balance, though, I think the Arab war on Israel shows that Helmuth von Moltke was correct in saying “No plan survives first contact with the enemy”. Who would have predicted that the professional militaries of Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria couldn’t defeat Jewish civilians? And who would have predicted that the Democratic Party here in the U.S. would become the primary financial sponsor and military ally of Islamic government in the region?