Why I voted for Kamala Harris - and why that decision makes me feel dirty

A few weeks ago, I asked Scot Goes Pop readers for advice about my dilemma over whether to vote for Kamala Harris or Jill Stein.  I think you could see from the reactions that the 'right' and 'wrong' answers in this case are very much in the eye of the beholder, because some people thought it was incomprehensible that I could even consider voting for Harris while she is in the middle of facilitating a genocide, but there were other people who found it equally incomprehensible that I could even consider not voting for Harris given that she is the only person who can stop Donald Trump.

In the end I voted for Harris, and I did the deed weeks ago, so I've had plenty of time to mull it over, and it does make me feel dirty.  I'm pretty sure the me of fifteen years ago would have taken the opposite decision, and the me of fifteen years ago might well have been right.  If I'd heard Bill Clinton's astounding pro-genocide speech before rather than after I voted, that might possibly have changed my decision, I don't know.  But for what it's worth, my reasoning was as follows -

* I just couldn't see what a vote for Stein was actually going to achieve.  If she had a realistic chance of getting to 5% of the vote, that would have swayed me, because it would have unlocked federal funding for the Greens.  Even a realistic chance of getting to 3% would have interested me, because that might have started a serious conversation among Democrats about the policy changes required to win that substantial bloc of votes back.  But at 1% or less of the vote for Stein, even if that's enough to swing the election in Trump's favour, the Democrats will stay in their comfort zone and the only lesson they'll learn is that they need to lecture voters even more about not wasting their votes.

* It's quite true that the first-past-the-post voting system forces you to choose at times between a glorified abstention and casting what is effectively a fifth-preference vote to prevent your sixth preference from winning. In a sensible America with a preferential voting system, I wouldn't have felt remotely conflicted about giving Harris a fifth preference vote to make sure I ranked her above Trump, and arguably the principle of voting for her tactically under FPTP is much the same.

* Harris is only one of two people on the Democratic ticket, and I gather Tim Walz is regarded as having had a left-ish record as governor of Minnesota (although he's no better than Harris on the genocide issue).  So that at least sprinkles a little glitter on the Democratic option.

The bottom line is that I always knew I would regret my decision regardless of which way I jumped, because there was no good option available.  I'm certainly not going to be willing Harris to win tomorrow night, but at least it won't be on my conscience if she doesn't.

If it wasn't for the fact that Trump is certain to be irresponsible on climate change, and is not the sort of person you'd ever want to put in total control of the world's second-largest nuclear arsenal, there would be an argument that a Trump win might even be the least worst option, because it would undermine American leadership of the 'international community', which has been so utterly toxic for decades.  For example, why else are some European countries so slavishly loyal to the Netanyahu regime, no matter how many atrocities it commits?  It's because US politicians are bought and paid for by the Israel lobby, and many European governments think, say and do whatever the Americans tell them to think, say and do.  A Trump win could indirectly stop that destructive cycle, because European voters will no longer recognise the US government as representing moral leadership.

Budget disaster for Labour in Scotland: bombshell Norstat poll shows SNP surging into big lead

I said on Wednesday that the initial reaction of commentators to a Budget often bears little resemblance to the actual political impact of that Budget after a little time has elapsed.  We may be seeing that phenomenon here, because in the hours after Rachel Reeves' speech, Scottish Labour figures and Labour-supporting journalists in Scotland were pretty bullish in their belief that she had found an alchemy that would set them up for success against the SNP.  And yet the first post-Budget poll in Scotland shows Labour nosediving.  That doesn't appear to be a coincidence, because the supplementary questions of the poll show that, even though many of the individual Budget measures command public support, there are pluralities who feel that the overall package is bad for households and bad for Scotland as a whole.

Scottish Parliament constituency ballot:

SNP 33% (-)

Labour 23% (-7)

Conservatives 15% (+3)

Reform UK 11% (+2)

Liberal Democrats 10% (+2)

Greens 6% (+1)

Scottish Parliament regional list ballot:

SNP 29% (+1)

Labour 22% (-6)

Conservatives 14% (-)

Reform UK 11% (+2)

Greens 9% (+1)

Liberal Democrats 9% (+2)

Alba 3% (-2)

Seats projection: SNP 51, Labour 29, Conservatives 16, Reform UK 12, Liberal Democrats 11, Greens 10

There's an important caveat here: four GB-wide polls have also been conducted since the Budget and three of those have shown Labour holding steady.  So if there is a Budget effect that is causing Labour to plummet in Scotland, it's odd that there isn't an equivalent Britain-wide effect.  Perhaps that's one reason to be sceptical, or at least cautious, about the trend that Norstat are showing.  But at the very least it looks like the Budget hasn't helped Labour's popularity.

In spite of the unexpectedly quick improvement of the SNP's polling position relative to Labour's since the general election, one thing we've had to keep reminding ourselves is that the SNP only looked well-placed to retain power in 2026, rather than to retain the overall pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament.  For the first time, this poll offers a scenario in which it starts to look just about plausible that the pro-independence majority could be rescued.  The SNP and Greens in combination are projected to have 61 seats - just 4 short of the 65 required for a majority.

There are different ways in which that shortfall could potentially be bridged, but it looks as if seats for Alba are unlikely to play any part.  As has been well-rehearsed, Norstat and their predecessor firm Panelbase have a history of significantly overstating Alba support, showing the party on 5% or 6% when the real figure was around 2%.  That was why there was a lot of wishful thinking involved when Alba claimed that the last Norstat poll, which showed them on 5%, was an indication that they were on course for list seats.  But now that even Norstat have them on only 3%, it's clear that Alba are not heading for list seats as things stand and that something will have to fundamentally change if a breakthrough is to be made.  I know that some people in Alba believed that the shock of Alex Salmond's death would in itself lead to a boost in support, but that certainly doesn't seem to have happened.

Once again, there's good news for the SNP in the leaders' ratings. Although John Swinney is in negative territory at -11, that still makes him slightly more popular than Anas Sarwar at -17, and far more popular than Keir Starmer at -36.  Russell Findlay has a poor opening score of -28, although admittedly that's a significant improvement on his predecessor Douglas Ross.

Interestingly, of the six individual Budget measures asked about in the poll, the only one respondents oppose (albeit narrowly) is providing £3 billion in funding to Ukraine "for as long as it takes".  That certainly wouldn't have been the case at the start of the war.  Perhaps voters have noticed that a First World War type stalemate has occurred and that resources are disappearing into a sort of 'death factory' rather than anything that will change the trajectory of the conflict. Or perhaps cynicism is creeping in, because it's so clear that the UK government will do whatever it takes to help Ukraine against Russian aggression, but will do absolutely nothing to aid the far more vulnerable population of Gaza against the Israeli-perpetrated genocide.