The reality on Harris is that she is the perfect liberal candidate for your average vote blue Democrat. For most of the electorate it's all about aesthetics. Joe's campaign was mostly aesthetics, Sweet Ol' Grampa Joe here to bring tough love and common sense. Hers will be the same.
She's a cop, facing down a criminal, she's a girl boss (the KHive is buzzing), she's a mother, she's an ally, shes "youthful", she's the perfect surrogate for the corporate Dem platform. We arrived here due to a multitude of factors. Not the least the uncommitted vote in the primary and the low turnout for states that had them. The debate simply finished the equation that was already looking bad for Joe.
The mass movement to vote uncommitted was never going to manifest into a principled stance that would follow through to the election. The solidarity vote will dry up now that biden is out. People who voted uncommitted will feel unburdened, knowing now they can vote blue no matter who in November, regardless of the actual policy slate. They did their part, the time for critical thought is over. People who are apathetic will feel energized by change, and feel less inclined to doom scroll. Any dissenting opinion will be ignored, as the "adults in the room" already did their part getting Biden out, regardless of how valid the criticisms of Harris are. We're back to our regularly scheduled program, where you better get in line or be the heel.
I think the typical "well meaning" democrat lib sees this as the light at the end of the tunnel. They will be able to put blinders on until November. Whatever momentum was gained for the left through principled action, organizing, and agitation will see these fair weather allies evaporate. Harris might have an equivalent stance on geopolitics to Joe, she might not, but the electorate will not entertain a second referendum on the matter. Been there, done that, this is the most important election of our lives sweety, time to vote.
I think the methods of controls involved with maintaining each party ensures total lock in for their respective electorate. There is no way for the electorate to see beyond the next 4 years. Voters rarely switch parties, and the pool of "undecided" voters is a shrinking class. However, the pool of non-voters changes with the level of perceived stability. When times are "good", economically, socially, geopolitically, the non-voter class grows.
When times are not "good", however, the non-voter class shrinks. In those stable times, there is no need to question the system at large for most of the electorate, but crisis creeps up on them, leaving them little time to consider anything else. I think, however, the closer these crisis points are to each other, the more likely the electorate will be pushed to seek alternative answers. I think from 2016 onward, we've been in a state of near perpetual crisis, and I think the events of our recent past are an indication of that.
To call it childish I think is to assume a level of self awareness that the American electorate does not have. They are ideologically stunted, and rarely have opportunities to build a more just and cohesive world view. If times keep moving like they are, we could truly see some weeks when decades happen.
I agree with you but that's what I meant by childish. As in no awareness of why they're supporting the candidate they are or opposing the candidate they are. They literally see red or blue and their autonomic nervous system kicks in with no conscious thought. Trained to a pavlovian degree.