news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[VOSS]

Resistance Is Justified I guess

[i spit on haters]

That recent Vance interview, he's still dancing around the question of did Trump lose the 2020 election just as he did during the debate.

 

I get why but come on, dude.

[Communion]

2 hours ago, TeeJay said:

I do not give a damn about what is happening overseas and I am sick of people going on and on about it

I think the issue or asterisk here is..if there is distance between yourself and the issue, that's valid. Your vote should be influenced by your material experiences. What issue is driving your life. But...for those most impacted by the issue and whom may not vote for Harris, it's not just an abstract issue. 

 

I've seen Palestinian Americans share media on social stories of how their hearts are aching with pain. 

 

Someone being told their aunt and her children - someone's nephews - ended up dead under the debris of an apartment building bombing. 

 

Someone being told their grandparents who they would FaceTime and call but never yet got to meet were killed or died due to the collapse in healthcare infrastructure. So many memories planned to be made for so many destroyed by the Israeli regime. Bloodlines ended. Dreams crushed. 

 

With the conflict spilling into Lebanon now and there being a higher amount of Americans on the ground, people now hear about their neighbors and friends. A Dearborn resident and American citizen was recently killed in Lebanon volunteering at a hospital to help the elderly. There are Americans to whom that was a father, a friend, a beloved coworker, a cherished neighbor. 

 

The White House believes there's enough familial connection between American Jews and Israeli Jews that 10/07 apparently demands public memorial for the 700 or so Israeli citizens who died... so what does that mean for America's Palestinian diaspora when medical journals estimate the direct and indirect death toll is projected to be nearly 400,000 in Gaza?

 

What are American Palestinians in states like Michigan meant to do when this reality isn't an issue happening overseas but at their doorstep with message after message of a dead uncle, a dead cousin, a dead nephew, a dead grandparent, a dead friend, a desd neighbor, a dead loved one? How does that pain not become all-consuming?

Edited October 11 by Communion

[GhostBox]

I think the biggest obstacle for Harris running to the left of Biden is the fact she will 100% have a gop senate. Nothing super progressive is ever getting done. So why should she go out and make all these promises on policy knowing **** ain't getting done 💀 

 

I know it sucks but we are at a point and time where we have to pick Harris who will maintain some form of normalcy, minimal progress  and stop some of the gop attacks (with the power of the pen) or have Trump and a gop senate ram through everything they want to do destroying any sign of normalcy, progress and democracy with it. 
 

I can see where that's not a pretty choice for some. But it's where we are as a country. We are stuck in this rut until Trumps political life dies. 🤷

 

 

[Tovitov]

On 10/10/2024 at 8:11 AM, Tovitov said:

Ever since 2016, democrats panic about every election. They point fingers or doom about the early vote returns or whatever outlier poll gets released. Every special, every midterm, every governor race. I'm worn out guys.

 

 

[Jackson]

This really shouldn't need to be said, but Harris isn't moderating her positions because she hates the left. She's following where she thinks American voters are, and the data largely supports it. The reality is that a lot of voters think she's too far to the left and very few think she's too conservative.

 

 

 

 

 

It's much easier to go after the 51% than the 6%, a lot of who are probably still voting for her regardless. I would love for her to move further to the left on things like Palestine and immigration, but unfortunately that's not where the country is right now.

[RihRihGirrrl]

10 minutes ago, GhostBox said:

I think the biggest obstacle for Harris running to the left of Biden is the fact she will 100% have a gop senate. Nothing super progressive is ever getting done. So why should she go out and make all these promises on policy knowing **** ain't getting done 💀 

 

I know it sucks but we are at a point and time where we have to pick Harris who will maintain some form of normalcy, minimal progress  and stop some of the gop attacks (with the power of the pen) or have Trump and a gop senate ram through everything they want to do destroying any sign of normalcy, progress and democracy with it. 
 

I can see where that's not a pretty choice for some. But it's where we are as a country. We are stuck in this rut until Trumps political life dies. 🤷

 

 

This is where I am....if Trump loses, I believe the era of Trump politics largely dies with him as the election will be a rejection of the outright hate and racism that his campaign and the GOP has proudly flaunted for the last decade. 

 

If Trump wins, I truly think there's no turning back and all of the lies and hate will become etched in politics for decades to come. 

 

I am beyond disgusted with how the Biden administration has handled foreign policy, particularly with Gaza and the whole Middle East....I just can not fathom living is this Country with Trump brand of politics becoming the new norm. It's dangerous, infuriating, and frankly, exhausting!

[Jackson]

1 hour ago, Sannie said:

Leftists are so pathetically desperate for any kind of validation they're trying to make connections where there aren't any. In what world does it make sense to say the polls tightening, which we've been saying would happen for months now, because Kamala isn't appealing to people who have already chosen not to vote her?

 

the entire reason the "polls are tightening" is because of the flood of right wing pollsters, not because Kamala is saying things that are objectively in line with the electorate. 

And the polls have moved what, like 1-2% in each state (including towards her in some states)? The national vote has actually gotten bluer over the past month. It's all just noise at this point. There's still a very real chance Kamala runs away with this election and then what will the narrative be?

[Tovitov]

Its insane that the Gaga base is more upbeat than this. 

 

The election is in 25 days. Kamala hasnt lost and the polls are tied. Save the meltdowns and fingerpointing for November 6th. 

[Communion]

2 hours ago, TeeJay said:

Handing power back to Trump because of something happening overseas is ******* stupid imo.

Not to dogpile on you, sis, but I think to everyone in this room, it's just a bit different of a reality:

 

 

 

[RihRihGirrrl]

7 minutes ago, Jackson said:

This really shouldn't need to be said, but Harris isn't moderating her positions because she hates the left. She's following where she thinks American voters are, and the data largely supports it. The reality is that a lot of voters think she's too far to the left and very few think she's too conservative.

 

 

 

 

 

It's much easier to go after the 51% than the 6%, a lot of who are probably still voting for her regardless. I would love for her to move further to the left on things like Palestine and immigration, but unfortunately that's not where the country is right now.

Who are the Hispanic's they surveyed? Mostly Cuban's? I just don't get why any other Hispanic would be in favor of mass deportation....they will not be spared even I'd they are legal smh

[Mr. Mendes]

7 hours ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Obviously there's a lot to unpack here but I'll try to respond 

 

There are times for me personally where I just get so frustrated with the state of things where I go fully cynical and adopt a "burn it all down" mindset but for the most part I've never acted on it: I've been a dedicated Dem voter since I was first eligible to vote, and it's been miserable ever since since that first year for me was a massive red wave year (AKA The Great Shellacking) and other than Obama getting re-elected, it was L after L after L up to Trump getting elected and everything feeling hopeless. And even then my vote largely didn't mean anything until 2020.
 

And now that the result of my suddenly consequential vote has been the enabling of a genocide, it's a haunting feeling… the thought that I'm knowingly committed to voting for someone who has promised that the atrocities must continue to be carried out in our name, fully funded by the American taxpayer. And it's maddening to see people insist that Harris can be pushed left once she is elected when, if anything, she will be governing to the right of where she's currently campaigning to court Cheney Republicans. There is no "pushing left" to be had, and people are kidding themselves. No. Deluding themselves into finding hope.

 

There will be no arms embargo. There will be no meaningful push for a ceasefire. There will be nothing other than light finger wagging and scolding while Netanyahu's Israel continues to receive the unconditional support that both parties are promising him.

 

All in all, like every group of voters, leftists are not a monolith. Not everyone wants to permit Trump to win again, but those who say they do do so out of naïveté. Either they're too young and don't remember what it was like because a lot of teenagers like that don't engage politically until they're just about to be of voting age, if they do so at all. Or they're blind, and they not only think it wasn't so bad last time, but that things will play out the same way with another four years. Either way, I don't think many of us actually want to see a Trump presidency, but have been frustrated because it has seemed like the Democrats have been throwing the election (which, to be fair, was a lot more apparent when Biden was still the presumptive nominee). And under Kamala, it has been made extremely obvious that the left isn't even a welcome part of their desired voting coalition. There's no desire to earn our votes, but chasing Republicans is the strategy. We're genuinely expected to take years of abuse and being told we're worthless when it comes to victory while also completely to blame when it comes to loss.

 

one last thing. It's become painfully obvious that Vote Blue No Matter Who only ever applies to the left, where you can have a socialist win a primary to become a mayoral candidate in Buffalo, but the statewide party chair will compare her to David Duke and encourage Republican donors to massively fund a write-in campaign.

 

6 hours ago, Bloo said:

Thank you for your genuine question. I greatly appreciate it. There is a lot to unpack. But, let me try to give a full response.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

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 NFTs—which 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.

 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.

 

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 here—nor 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.

Thank you both for taking the time to respond, it is so so appreciated! I do have some follow ups, but I am at work until 1:00 AM tonight (kill me please), so it'll have to be after then. I just didn't want to leave these sitting and let you know I appreciated it and look forward to continuing when I'm finally free of this hell. 

[midnightdawn]

1 hour ago, rivers said:

We need a new viral coconut tree moment to cheer us up methinks

 

 

 

Kamala needs a crying in the cafeteria moment like Hillary had in 2008 that won her New Hampshire

 

 

[Jackson]

3 minutes ago, RihRihGirrrl said:

Who are the Hispanic's they surveyed? Mostly Cuban's? I just don't get why any other Hispanic would be in favor of mass deportation....they will not be spared even I'd they are legal smh

It's obviously complicated and varies by background and state, but I've read a lot of accounts of Hispanics that say they immigrated the right way and waited their turn and buy into the Republican narrative that immigrants are taking their jobs and driving up costs. A lot of people are just completely unfamiliar with what Trump's plans actually are. If you change the wording and ask voters if they favor a path to citizenship for those already here, a slim majority support that as well even though it's the exact opposite of mass deportations. In short, voters are dumb.

[Communion]

1 hour ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

You're making up things and pulling an article about European elections. Once again, the American presidential race is decided by swing state voters.

 

issa knife when popularists don't support popular policies.

[Blade]

If Fischer somehow loses Nebraska's Senate delegation for R's

[Communion]

25 minutes ago, Jackson said:

She's following where she thinks American voters are, and the data largely supports it.

Kamala Harris being unable to thread the needle of being seen as having common sense policies while promoting progressive policies her base + most Americans want doesn't:

• Mean progressive policies are unpopular
• Justify her abandoning said policies and moving to the right

It just means she's an awful candidate and politician who lacks any kind of political skill to convincingly convey her ideology (because she doesn't have one) to voters.

 

This is quite literally what she failed at doing in 2020 and it's embarrassing that she's failing spectacularly in the same way literally again. 

Edited October 12 by Communion

[Harrier]

The left never gives the voting electorate enough heat for its abject stupidity. Of course there are things that can be done to improve: Kamala should adopt the arms embargo, she should stop overemphasising the bipartisanship, she should clean up her answers on differences with Biden. But do not lose sight of the reality: the American electorate is ******* deranged. Fully at least 35% of your country are MAGA psychos. Another 5-8 percent are mainstream bush-era Republicans. A lot of voters are dumb and their views don't make sense, like the good sis Jackson was saying. This is the electoral environment that democrats have to exist in: they have to somehow pull together a disparate big-tent coalition of voters from accross the political spectrum to defeat Republican voters in every election cycle, that includes everything from online communists, to Never-Trump Republicans, to wishy-washy non-idealogical independents, to partisan dems. That is a huge, incredibly difficult task. Meanwhile all Republicans need to do is turn out the base, so can run as right-wing as they wish, and then try to surpress the vote and create division to prevent this coalition from coming together.

 

I get it, it is frustrating that the 'left' party is not really that left wing. But maybe, just sometimes, direct some of your ire about this at the many millions of Americans who every year help your country stay a right-wing shithole with their horrendous politics. 

[RihRihGirrrl]

11 minutes ago, Jackson said:

It's obviously complicated and varies by background and state, but I've read a lot of accounts of Hispanics that say they immigrated the right way and waited their turn and buy into the Republican narrative that immigrants are taking their jobs and driving up costs. A lot of people are just completely unfamiliar with what Trump's plans actually are. If you change the wording and ask voters if they favor a path to citizenship for those already here, a slim majority support that as well even though it's the exact opposite of mass deportations. In short, voters are dumb.

Sounds about right....at what point do we start putting the blame on voters for choosing to be uninformed....

[RihRihGirrrl]

3 minutes ago, Harrier said:

The left never gives the voting electorate enough heat for its abject stupidity. Of course there are things that can be done to improve: Kamala should adopt the arms embargo, she should stop overemphasising the bipartisanship, she should clean up her answers on differences with Biden. But do not lose sight of the reality: the American electorate is ******* deranged. Fully at least 35% of your country are MAGA psychos. Another 5-8 percent are mainstream bush-era Republicans. This is the electoral environment that democrats have to exist in: they have to somehow pull together a disparate big-tent coalition of voters from accross the political spectrum to defeat Republican voters in every election cycle, that includes everything from online communists, to Never-Trump Republicans, to wishy-washy non-idealogical independents, to partisan dems. That is a huge, incredibly difficult task. Meanwhile all Republicans need to do is turn out the base, so can run as right-wing as they wish, and then try to surpress the vote and create division to prevent this coalition from coming together.

 

I get it, it is frustrating that the 'left' party is not really that left wing. But maybe, just sometimes, direct some of your ire about this at the many millions of Americans who every year help your country stay a right-wing shithole with their horrendous politics. 

What a coincidence that my last post just hit on this lol

[Bears01]

1 minute ago, Harrier said:

The left never gives the voting electorate enough heat for its abject stupidity. Of course there are things that can be done to improve: Kamala should adopt the arms embargo, she should stop overemphasising the bipartisanship, she should clean up her answers on differences with Biden. But do not lose sight of the reality: the American electorate is ******* deranged. Fully at least 35% of your country are MAGA psychos. Another 5-8 percent are mainstream bush-era Republicans. This is the electoral environment that democrats have to exist in: they have to somehow pull together a disparate big-tent coalition of voters from accross the political spectrum to defeat Republican voters in every election cycle, that includes everything from online communists, to Never-Trump Republicans, to wishy-washy non-idealogical independents, to partisan dems. Meanwhile all Republicans need to do is turn out the base, so can run as right-wing as they wish, and then try to surpress the vote and create division to prevent this coalition from coming together.

 

I get it, it is frustrating that the 'left' party is not really that left wing. But maybe, just sometimes, direct some of your ire about this at the many millions of Americans who every year help your country stay a right-wing shithole with their horrendous politics. 

You do make good points, that I wanna disagree with. 
 

Americans are largely stupid, and willfully so. 
 

 

Now, to a point I wanted to make: 

 

If Kamala loses, I would blame a large part on her obsession with winning over republicans and ignoring the base. Why was Leon Panneta givin a prime speaking spot at the DNC? Why did she campaign with Liz Cheney and praise Dick, instead of a simple "thanks for the endorsement"? Who was inviting a bunch of Trump staffers to speak at the dnc winning over? Nobody. 
 

Biden has many flaws, but he did a good job of reaching out to the base, young voters, hence why they turned out for him. Kamala's obsession with "winning over former Trump voters" could be a fatal flaw. The BASE itself, is almost big enough on its own to win. Win them over and lock them up as a vote for you. Hillary didn't, hence why she's not president 

[wastedpotential]

1 hour ago, Vermillion said:

 

It seems that the relationship between the mainstream of the Democratic Party and the pro-Palestine activist groups will be pretty damned if they do or damned if they don't. Either Kamala wins without them and proves to the centrist wing of the party that they don't need their votes, and thus can gorge themselves on AIPAC cash without any cause for concern or retribution, and can stop pretending to even pay lip service to the civilian casualties in Gaza; or Kamala loses and they're going to take the brunt of the blame like the Naderides (though given the current state of polarization and the whole reason this chunk of the electorate is acting this way, any potential future reconciliation seems highly implausible).

 

This is probably their best shot at making change within the party, because Trump is as big of a bargaining chip to wield over the centrists as they'll ever get (and whatever candidate the GOP runs in 2028 likely won't have the same fear factor even if their policy proposals are even worse), and the bridges have been pretty thoroughly burned at this point. No matter the outcome, it doesn't seem likely that the Dems will ever pick up the Muslim vote in Michigan again, and I wouldn't be especially surprised to see Rashida Tlaib run as an independent next time 

[Communion]

12 minutes ago, Harrier said:

Fully at least 35% of your country are MAGA psychos. Another 5-8 percent are mainstream bush-era Republicans.

I mean, this is exactly why it's wild that Harris' complete political strategy is attempting to peel off that 43% of voters and not the nearly 60% majority who want progressive policies? 

 

60% of all American voters want: single-payer healthcare provided by the government, college to be free to all, all undocumented migrants to be given a pathway to citizenship, for the US to stop funding wars abroad and being responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, etc. 

 

It's weird for people to act like the swing states are Oklahoma and Wyoming and not states with largely urban metros full of progressive working class people of color.

 

"Blame Americans for being stupid" is the incongruence that occurs when one - for some reason - blindly trusts Democrats as elected officials to always operate in good faith, not be subject to corruption through power and money, and act in the interest of their constituents as opposed to their donors.

 

The American electorate in question you have to blame for Dems rejecting popular progressive policy:

  

 

There's a reason why Dem operatives went scorched-earth on Sanders once he said the below. They didn't care if their voters liked or rejected Sanders (and most seemed to really like him) - Sanders swung for the donors and had the voting base on his side and thus had to be eliminated from the race, one way or another.

 

 

Edited October 12 by Communion

[Tovitov]

1 minute ago, Bears01 said:

You do make good points, that I wanna disagree with. 
 

Americans are largely stupid, and willfully so. 
 

 

Now, to a point I wanted to make: 

 

If Kamala loses, I would blame a large part on her obsession with winning over republicans and ignoring the base. Why was Leon Panneta givin a prime speaking spot at the DNC? Why did she campaign with Liz Cheney and praise Dick, instead of a simple "thanks for the endorsement"? Who was inviting a bunch of Trump staffers to speak at the dnc winning over? Nobody. 
 

Biden has many flaws, but he did a good job of reaching out to the base, young voters, hence why they turned out for him. Kamala's obsession with "winning over former Trump voters" could be a fatal flaw. The BASE itself, is almost big enough on its own to win. Win them over and lock them up as a vote for you. Hillary didn't, hence why she's not president 

I'd disagree with you that Biden wasnt also courting never Trump republicans. Colin Powell and John Kasich both spoke at the 2020 dnc(alot of republicans did actually). 

[Harrier]

4 minutes ago, Bears01 said:

You do make good points, that I wanna disagree with. 
 

Americans are largely stupid, and willfully so. 
 

 

Now, to a point I wanted to make: 

 

If Kamala loses, I would blame a large part on her obsession with winning over republicans and ignoring the base. Why was Leon Panneta givin a prime speaking spot at the DNC? Why did she campaign with Liz Cheney and praise Dick, instead of a simple "thanks for the endorsement"? Who was inviting a bunch of Trump staffers to speak at the dnc winning over? Nobody. 
 

Biden has many flaws, but he did a good job of reaching out to the base, young voters, hence why they turned out for him. Kamala's obsession with "winning over former Trump voters" could be a fatal flaw. The BASE itself, is almost big enough on its own to win. Win them over and lock them up as a vote for you. Hillary didn't, hence why she's not president 

I do agree with the point that there is too much focus right now on getting a small sliver of Republican voters, rather than turning out the base. I suppose if I'm thinking from the campaign's perspective, they think Kamala has inherent advantages with young voters and base voters that Biden lacks, but at the same time has stronger weakness with moderate voters, including never Trumpers & independents. Only a month or two ago, she had huge base momentum that is now disappating a bit, and they're too slow to react to it. Hopefully she will change course a bit in the next few weeks to make sure that coalition fully comes together and she doesn't take the base for granted.