Blade Posted October 11 Posted October 11 2006 midterms > Blue Waveย 2008: Obama wins ย 2010 midterms > House flips red, Senate remains blue but more red 2012: Obama wins ย 2014 midterms > Senate flips red 2016: Trump wins ย 2018 midterms > blue wave Dem control of both chambers 2020: Biden wins ย 2022 midterms: blue waves in Rust Belt, red wave in FL, NY, CAย 2024 > ??
Blade Posted October 11 Posted October 11 The hurricane discourse is really going to lead to the most unhinged conspiracy theories on election day when and if there's some slightly extreme weather in a swing state.
Blade Posted October 11 Posted October 11 2 minutes ago, dabunique said: I just know he got a bad NC internal just now 1 1 4
RihRihGirrrl Posted October 11 Posted October 11 Just now, dabunique said: Jesus.....the echo chamber of ridiculous lies. How does this not disqualify someone from being the President of the United States 6 3
FameFatale Posted October 11 Posted October 11 10 minutes ago, dabunique said: This is so dangerous and EXHAUSTING!ย
dabunique Posted October 11 Posted October 11 7 minutes ago, Blade said: He's so unlikeable i'll answer ur question when u answer mine ย no b!tch it don't work like dat ย i ask questions here, i'm da interviewer and if u don't want to answer dem then da door is right thereย
GhostBox Posted October 11 Posted October 11 8 minutes ago, Blade said: He's so unlikeable How can he not answer this simple question ๐
ATRL Moderator Bloo Posted October 11 ATRL Moderator Posted October 11 8 hours ago, Mr. Mendes said: This is a very long bit of text to follow in the spoiler, but reading what you're saying here just has opened up some thoughts I've been having as of late, and I'd like to ask some questions to just to help gain some clarity on those thoughts because you are more in the know about leftism and the goings on within that sector at the moment.ย ย @Communionย , @State of Grace., and @ClashAndBurnย I'd like to loop you in on this too and hear what you've got to say because you're all individuals whose opinions and thoughts I respect and like reading and you three are too more on the in the know about leftism in general. You are also individuals who I think realize I may not necessarily be totally in line with you ideologically but recognize I have a genuine desire to bridge a gap to better understand where you come from (which, frankly, I don't think enough people in this thread try to do). ย My sometimes rambling thoughts and some questions in the spoiler: ย ย Hide contents That last bit is really something that has stuck out to me. I've spent a lot of time trying to understand leftists this election cycle. I am not one myself, at least not in the current form they exist in. But I am at the same time not really a liberal? It seems odd to say because the way things have shaken out lately it seems that someone is one or the other, but I have long felt very caught between those two sides. I understand liberals rather well because...well I mean they're not particularly difficult to understand. Leftists however often can be, especially when they've got people like Jill Stein out in front of their movement who I think does a real disservice to leftists as a whole. ย In trying to understand more about leftists and why they've come to the positions they have, i've seen a lot of similar sentiments to the one you just shared. Of course that isn't all of it, but it seems to've played a major role.ย ย I was just 15 during that election cycle, and was not at all very plugged in so to speak. I cannot imagine what it felt like to work so hard for nothing. To that end, I do very much understand where leftists' feelings in regards to the system comes from. In some ways, I share it (i haven't experienced a loss yet in a presidential election only because I've just voted in one; I've lost a lot on the state level because I'm in Tennessee and voting blue hear is like screaming into a void jhknl). It's an unfair system by design and having to just bit my lip and work with it grows exhausting.ย ย I do want to see a change to it some day, and I don't want a two party system to be the norm forever. That being said, this particular election I've found myself pulled in a lot of different directions.ย ย I want to be clear here that I am not a Democratic bootlicker. I am not registered as a Democrat, I am critical of Democrats, and have been especially vocally critical of the current administration as my post history here and beyond will show. But I at the same time believe that when it comes time to vote, it still must go to the Democrats. It is perhaps a rather simplistic way of thinking, but I see the chances for actual change in the future as more likely with a Democratic party who is able to be pushed than it is with a Republican party who has proven rather immovable. In other words, I think that there is a much clearer avenue for my more leftist coded policy desires to be achieved by helping to elect Kamala Harris and then applying pressure to her and her party to move back further left than there is by Trump coming into power and successfully allowing the ever more extreme Republican party agenda to be let loose.ย ย Of course, I live in Tennessee, so my vote will mean zilch and I know that. But I will still cast it and still speak openly about my beliefs because I do actually believe in the potential for places like Tennessee to change little by little over the years with more people willing to reject Trump like ideals openly.ย ย I say all of this not to just give you a biography of myself, but in an effort to sort of explain to you where I am in this election in order to very earnestly ask you to share the same; in other words, explain what I'm missing in regards to the leftist position of things at the moment: why does it seem that ultimately leftists and other sectors of the left have the same or similar goals, but are going about it this election cycle in a way that appears to be counterproductive to that goal?ย ย What I mean is, I've imagined through most of this that what leftists mean when they say they want to be agitators of Democrats is the same thing I mean--they want to apply pressure to the party and their candidates to make progressive moves. I've also imagined that despite their public criticizing and pushing of Dems in the pre-election day cycle does not mean they are under the impression that an actual progressive candidate has a chance to win in 2024, and as such they will still be voting for the Democrats in the election (though one day they would like to not have to), just with the condition that they will push even harder and apply even firmer pressure to the Democrats if they win. ย But in the last month or so specifically, I've become less and less sure of that. I look at leftists in many spaces (granted, they're online spaces and i know online leftists can sometimes be a very different breed of person LMAO) openly saying they hope Harris loses and they'll do whatever they can to ensure that. That would, by sheer virtue of how our system works currently, mean that Trump wins the election.ย ย I mean...surely that's not the actual goal here, right? Surely leftists as a whole aren't actually okay with Trump back in the White House as long as that means Harris isn't? Or is that currently where things lay?ย ย That may sound like a very stupid question, and I'm sorry if it is. But I'm just at the moment really having trouble parsing through what I logically think to be true and what I see actually unfolding, and i'd like to hear from someone more inside of it all so to speak.ย ย ย ย Thank you for your genuineย question. I greatly appreciate it. There is aย lotย to unpack. But, let me try to give a full response. ย ย First, I want to say I am from Kentucky (lived there from birth to 2022), so I wanted to extend a neighborly "hi". Second, I want to highlight that online leftists are not fully representative of all leftists. This is not even a leftist-exclusive phenomenon. The Internet bolsters certain types of content that drives engagement even if that engagement is anger and riddled with disinformation. Twitter is especially bad at it. Personally, I also use Twitter to kind of vent at the state of things. So, I would caution against conflating your impressions of online leftists with all leftists. Some of us need to yell on the Internet to expunge negative energy and that's okay. There are of course some leftists that engage in bad behavior, but that's true of any community so it shouldn't be uniquely attributed to leftists. That said, I am someone of the firm opinion that I think vote shaming is bad. If you are someone who feels it is in your best interest to vote for Kamala Harris because you are worried about how Trump will worsen the Supreme Court, that is completely valid. I'm not going to shame people worried about their bodily autonomy because they choose to vote for someone they feel is going to protect their civil reproductive rights. However, to that same extent, I have no patience for liberals that choose to chastise people who want to vote Green or for the PSL because they cannot bring themselves to vote for a candidate who has said, repeatedly, that they support the slaughter of their loved ones in Gaza. Many American voters have lost literal loved ones in Gaza and they have every right to yell, scream, and protest (even if that's at the ballot box). If you engage in attacking people for legitimate concerns, then you deserve push back. You cannot claim to care about "protecting Democracy" while also trying to guilt and shame people into voting for your preferred candidate. That is inherently anti-Democratic behavior. I personally would prefer Kamala to win but I find it difficult to reward her with my vote given how badly she's done on basic things. Related to this, it is important to note that we all operate with different schools of thought on what our votes mean. For some people, a vote is a clinical and impersonal action and thus it can be easy to vote for the "lesser evil". That's a legitimate perspective. It is fair to say, "I will vote for candidate A because candidate B scares the hell out of me." That is valid. My main concern is that people are put into situations where fear is their main driver for voting, but that's not a criticism of them. Others, however, ascribe personal sentiment to their vote. They feel that if they vote for a candidate and that candidate wins and goes on to do heinous things, they feel a personal sense of liability for their actions because they "helped" get them elected. I think this is also fair. There are also people who feel like their vote needs to be earned and they do not want to feel like they are reward politicians they find to be objectionable. These are all perfectly fine schools of thought. In a Democratic system, you should not be angry that people are thinking about their own personal vote. Part of the Democratic system is allowing people to express their voice as they see fit and, yes, refusing to vote can be a form of political speech and we cannot claim to be both (1) pro-Democracy and (2) willing to shame people for participating in political speech with which we disagree. We can disagree with their opinions and their perspective but I think focusing on shaming people for their voting choices is often a waste of time when we could focus that energy on those with power. To that point, the people I will chastise are politicians. This includes Republicans; this includes Democrats; and this also includes third party politicians. I will give due credit when anyone does something I agree with (e.g., I find MTG to be wholly objectionable, but I will acknowledge her for being correct to vote against the TikTok ban). Now, I want to kind of focus on what I think is the spirit of your question: why some leftists are choosing to sit out. Now, reminder, online leftists are not representative of all leftists. I personally know people who participate in organizational efforts for communist movements in the United States that are voting for Kamala Harris due to the "lesser evil" school of thought. I also know plenty of these people who are choosing not to vote for Kamala. Some are doing so in hopes of getting the Green Party to a 5% national vote total which would qualify them for federal funding (with the hope being this could help the party in down-ballot races). I know some who are voting for Claudia De la Cruz (the PSL presidential candidate); but the PSL mission is to build up a vanguard of communists and socialists that are at the ready for the time when capitalism breaks and people need an alternative to turn to. The PSL's participation in the presidential race is partly giving people an option to vote and also partly amplifying their platform because, regrettably, people are mostly tuned into politics during election cycles. So if you are trying to politically engage with people, it is necessary to tap into the presidential circus in hopes of pulling people into the broader leftist movement (e.g., think of how many people were activated by the Bernie Sanders campaign; in 2016, Bernie initially had no expectation of doing as well as he did because he only wanted to get some ideas out there to spark conversation). Part of leftism is remaining politically engaged. Notice how most of the consistently active members of this thread are leftists. Many members of this forum will mock them for being too involved, but I don't see how that's a bad thing? To quote Obama, "Democracy isn't an observation sport." It is necessary for people to stay engaged to hold the people that work for them (e.g., the president, the House, the Senate) accountable for when they mess up. Much of Leftism is calling out the failings of the Democratic Party, not because we hate the Democrats more than the Republicans, but because (1) nobody in mainstream media is calling out their legitimate problems and (2) they are a bigger obstacle to Leftism. Why are they the bigger obstacle? Well, a lot of well-intentioned people that want civil rights, want reduce/eliminate economic inequality, want universal healthcare, and want to combat climate change... place their faith in the Democratic Party during election cycles and then tune out and find themselves disappointed when nothing changes but are scared by the Republican Party that they do the same thing again. The issue is that the Democratic Party is fundamentally opposed to delivering on their promises because they respond to big dollar donors. For instance, Kamala Harris is stupidly warming up to the idea of cryptocurrency (https://www.axios.com/2024/09/23/harris-embraces-crypto-overture-young-men). Why? Well, there are big money donors in the cryptocurrency market. These are the same fraudsters that delivered the obvious scam of NFTsโwhich were quickly derided. Is cryptocurrency any better? Well... no. It is extremely energy-inefficient and it does not solve any real problem. I'm a Ph.D. researcher in computer science. I know full well how the blockchain works. It is mathematically very interesting. But it does not solve anything (unless you are wanting to commit criminal transactions, but shhh). So, why would Kamala Harris warm up to this idea when it solves nothing, it inordinately harms our environment to mint cryptocurrency transaction, and it is not even popular with the American people? Well, there is money there and Kamala Harris has a lot of ties to Silicon Valley and she wants their support. This is why Kamala Harris would flip from day to day on Medicare For All in 2019 when she first ran for president (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiwY0n4F0a4) because he had donors from private insurance companies contributing to her campaign but she knew Medicare for All was popular. She's not genuine in her beliefs. To these well-intentioned voters that want the things Democrats promise but intentionally choose to not pursue, the Democrats are the bigger problem than the Republicans who truthfully say they are not interested in the things these well-intentioned people care about. I am going to be more bothered by a party that claims to want to combat climate change but then does nothing significant about it than I will be at the party that I've written off as being unreliable, if not evil altogether. ย You cannot have a government that represents the people and our interests while billionaires and corporations are able to pay off both sides to do their bidding. So, until that is fixed, we will forever have two parties that focus on social issues to separate us. There were reports in 2022 of the Democratic Party thinking of moving away from mentioning abortion rights going into the 2022 midterms until they saw the reaction to Roe v. Wade where they saw an opportunity to differentiate themselves against Republicans. Now, note, how that is the main point of distinction. There are other minor points, sure. But, the Democrats were very anti-border wall in 2020 and 2016, but now they are supportive of it. The differences are less stark than many might think and that's something we should be calling out. ย Many liberals focus on the importance of "protecting Democracy". But, Democracy is not about voting. Democracy is about the people being represented by their government. The vote is a simple tool to allow people to be represented by representatives of their choosing. When those representatives are not reflecting the needs and wants of the people that elected them and instead operate from a hyper-partisan place (e.g., you have to vote for me to stop the other side from winning), then Democracy is effectively dead anyway because we're treating it like a team sport rather than a system meant to reflect and represent the people. When liberals say, "We can talk policy later. Right now, we just need to shut up and vote for the Democrats," that's not a good argument for them. It's actually a pretty damning symptom of a broken, rotting corpse of what is supposed to be a Democratic government. As soon as you tell voters, "Stop worrying about your problems and issues and how they might be addressed," then Democracy is not being faithfully applied. To your earlier point about your age and not being politically "around" in 2016, I think that election affected a lot of us deeply. For me personally, that was my first election. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary against Bernie Sanders. I thought Bernie had good ideas, but I totally bought into the idea that compromise was necessary and believed Hillary would be more effective to enact change as president than Bernie because she was more moderate. Why did I think this? Well, in most contexts, compromise is a salient idea. In relationships with friends and loved ones, you compromise. It's a basic building block of how we engage with people. So it's easy to buy into the idea of the Democrats needing to compromise with the Republicans; and the Left needing to compromise with the Right. There's a problem though, compromise is not always applicable. First, you cannot compromise with people that are disinterested in compromise. Compromise requires mutual, reciprocal investment to be helpful. Second, there is *no* compromise between (1) I think climate change is a hoax and (2) I think climate change is real. There is no middle ground here. How are we to compromise? Another example: (1) I think trans people shouldn't exist and (2) I think trans people deserve human rights. You cannot compromise hereโnor should you because we shouldn't compromise with bigotry on human rights. Despite this, the Democrats continue to engage in this illusion of needing to compromise with the other side. Biden repeatedly said Mitch McConnell was an "honorable man" and "a man of his word". I'm from Kentucky. Mitch McConnell is a terrible person and he deserves no flowers for what he has done against the American people. Harris recently said she would have a Republican join her administration because she likes "good ideas" despite where they come from, even though she was unable to name a single good idea that came from a Republican. The go-to example of a Republican Saint is John McCain for not voting for abolishing a law that prevented insurance companies from not covering people with pre-existing conditions... we can acknowledge and appreciate John McCain for making the right choice, but there was an evil choice and there was a rational choice. You should not be praised to high heaven for not harming people. (This is unrelated, but I think it's a similar example. I often get frustrated when people say they are "socially left" and what they mean is that they don't hate people of color but don't believe in things like Reparations for Black Americans. Not hating Black people is a centrist position: you are literally born not hating Black people. So to say you are on the Left of how you feel about Black people is weird because it is the default position not to hate Black people. I think this is similar. We shouldn't reward politicians for making such obvious, clear decisions. These are not heated debates about whether a carbon tax or a green energy tax credit is better than the other.) After 2016 and Hillary lost, I was horrified. I struggled to really know what to do next. But, I was politically activated and I stayed activated. I chose to get over the 2016 primary (hoping many of y'all try to do the same thing, cause I'm tired of y'all all fighting about it 8 years later) and go into 2019/2020 with an open mind. I began to see inconsistencies in the Democrats and ended up voting for Bernie this time around. The thing that stood out to me though was that Biden was solidly to the right of Hillary on a number of issues (e.g., Hillary advocated for expanding Medicare to include people of age 55; Biden advocated for expanding Medicare to include people of age 60; another example is Biden's conservative lean on abortion). So, we had shifted right-ward. Even if it was minimal. But, okay, whatever. I understand why people voted out of fear and went with what they felt was the safest option. The breaking point, for me, was when Democrats won the House, Senate, and White House in 2020/2021. That was *the* moment that the Democrats in 2016 said was needed to make sure we could have a progressive society. And what happened? Did we get the $15 minimum wage Biden promised? Did we get an expansion to Medicare? Well... no! If you didn't followed it closely, you would think Biden couldn't do anything because of the filibuster. This is false. The $15 minimum wage proposal was possible via budget reconciliation. It was included. The unelected Senate Parliamentarian suggested it not be included and then the Democrats dropped it. When the Senate Parliamentarian suggested to the GOP that they not include corporate tax cuts, they fired them and passed it anyway. So, this unelected person was not the problem. The Democrats just did not care. Of course, Manchin and Sinema would play a role, but Biden was not out there fighting for his policies that he ran on. He folded very quickly. This all demonstrated how unserious this party is at passing their agenda. All of this to say, this is a very longwinded diatribe of my personal evolution into a Leftist. I hope it was informative or enlightening. I started writing and then it all came out as word vomit. So I'm not sure if this is most clear explanation of the answers to your questions. Let me know if you have questions. 2 4
GhostBox Posted October 11 Posted October 11 Having babies is literally all they see and want women to do ๐ it's weirdย ย 1 1
shelven Posted October 11 Posted October 11 28 minutes ago, Blade said: He's so unlikeable I truly cannot comprehend why they won't give up their position on this issue which is so obviously bad for them and carries literally zero upside. It's not like this is some heavily lobbied issue where their wallets will get hurt by admitting they lost - if anything, corporate donors probably become MORE willing to donate to them if they look less conspiratorial. And it's probably not even an issue their base cares all that much about, since the only reason they even started to care about it in the first place is because Trump chose to make it an issue.ย ย It's just baffling. It'd be like if Harris and Walz were refusing to answer questions about whether they support or oppose shooting puppies in the face. Literally what downside is there to just say the obvious answer that stops this from being a massive losing issue for you? 4
Blade Posted October 11 Posted October 11 ย Cook with Harris +2 not included and neither was a +3 state poll from last weekย 2 1
RihRihGirrrl Posted October 11 Posted October 11 4 minutes ago, shelven said: I truly cannot comprehend why they won't give up their position on this issue which is so obviously bad for them and carries literally zero upside. It's not like this is some heavily lobbied issue where their wallets will get hurt by admitting they lost - if anything, corporate donors probably become MORE willing to donate to them if they look less conspiratorial. And it's probably not even an issue their base cares all that much about, since the only reason they even started to care about it in the first place is because Trump chose to make it an issue.ย ย It's just baffling. It'd be like if Harris and Walz were refusing to answer questions about whether they support or oppose shooting puppies in the face. Literally what upside is there to just say the obvious answer that stops this from being a massive losing issue for you? It's because they want to claim fraud if they lose again, this election cycleย
Bethenny Frankel Posted October 11 Posted October 11 I think Kamala will win Pennsylvania and I don't see her losing if she does
Gottasadae Posted October 11 Posted October 11 (edited) 12 minutes ago, shelven said: I truly cannot comprehend why they won't give up their position on this issue which is so obviously bad for them and carries literally zero upside. It's not like this is some heavily lobbied issue where their wallets will get hurt by admitting they lost - if anything, corporate donors probably become MORE willing to donate to them if they look less conspiratorial. And it's probably not even an issue their base cares all that much about, since the only reason they even started to care about it in the first place is because Trump chose to make it an issue.ย ย It's just baffling. It'd be like if Harris and Walz were refusing to answer questions about whether they support or oppose shooting puppies in the face. Literally what downside is there to just say the obvious answer that stops this from being a massive losing issue for you? Because they're simply need those fake narratives to have a second wave of "stop the count" madness for their r*tarded supporters. Trump is always put his ego first and ppl like him don't know how to accept the fair and square defeatย Edited October 11 by Gottasadae 1
Space Cowboy Posted October 11 Posted October 11 If Kamala loses, do you see her trying again in 2028 or will she disappear from politics a la Hilary?
GhostBox Posted October 11 Posted October 11 1 minute ago, Space Cowboy said: If Kamala loses, do you see her trying again in 2028 or will she disappear from politics a la Hilary? Hillary didn't disappear after her first loss. She became SOS and was widely viewed positively. She had very high favorables for a while. Then she started running in 2015 and yea we know what happened ๐ ย so she might run again in 2028 but I don't see her being the breakout star.ย
anti-bitch Posted October 11 Posted October 11 15 minutes ago, GhostBox said: Having babies is literally all they see and want women to do ๐ it's weirdย ย Literally the best "weapon" women have against patriarchy is to stop having children. If people think birth rate is low now, just wait a few years from now when Gen Z women are supposed to have children, they won't. And we can only imagine how conservative men will respond to that happening.
Lil Mistee Posted October 11 Posted October 11 II agree with others saying this really is a toss up. I feel like 2016 was obvious (honestly) and 2020 also was somewhat obvious (I was surprised by Georgia tho). This one seems like a genuine we don't know, I'm still leaning towards Kamala wining PA, Michigan and neveda tho. The others idk anymoreย 1
Recommended Posts