You're viewing part of a thread.
She ran a near perfect campaign in the time she had.
Near perfect? Is that a joke?
She ran on the status quo which is absolutely not working for a ton of people. She campaigned with Dick Cheney, an immensely unpopular politician across the entire political spectrum responsible for a pointless war that killed countless people. She completely failed to adapt to a changing media environment with streamers and the like, which the Republicans took full advantage of. The messaging she did have was completely unfocused, the one moment she had of doing something right was calling Republicans weird, which she then dropped because of civility-brain. And that's not even talking about Palestine!
What on earth did she do right strategically? Near perfect? I can hardly think of a single thing she didn't screw up! And the result was, again, the worst electoral result since the Republicans took Cali. Absolutely insane thing to assert.
Could’ve united and killed the republicans party. Locked Trump up. Shifted the Overton window back and gotten some leftists as the opposition but looks like you’ll need to do it the hard way.
No, none of that could've happened. Leftist defectors were not a large enough contingent to have swung the election. Even if we were, and had fallen in line, it wouldn't have done shit for the Overton window, it would've kept going right and shown the Democrats that there's zero consequences for moving so far right that they're actively committing genocide. This idiotic and self-defeating strategy of falling in line behind the lesser evil is what the left has been doing for generations and it's how we got here in the first place.
Question for you: where do you think Trump came from? Do you think he's just a random fluke, or were there root causes that allowed someone like him to become popular? Follow up, do you think that a problem can be addressed using the same approach that created the problem in the first place?
Y'all are completely conservative in your thinking, you're just trying to cling to a past that is gone for good. If the Democratic party fails to adapt to changing conditions, then it will die, and the only question is how much wasted effort we put into it before we realize it's a lost cause.
She wasn’t trying to win your vote. The population votes for the status quo. Deviation from that would’ve led to her loss. You weren’t going to get another Sanders in the time she had.
Has there been an American president who wasn’t contributing one way or another to a genocide? Idk why people act like that’s surprising. They’re all war criminals. There’s a difference between that and actively egging them to ramp it up while using ‘Palestinians’ as a slur.
The Cons would’ve felt the consequences, as Trumps crimes were laid bare over the subsequent years and the extent of their delusion publicly dissected. Embarrassment is one of the few things fascists understand.
This vacuum would’ve led to space for leftist voices to emerge.
No Trump was not a fluke, but you’d assume in the Information age someone so blatantly acting against your interests wouldn’t be your pick.
Dems aren’t ever going to solve anything either way. It’s just a nicer environment for the rest of us to try and do so.
She wasn’t trying to win your vote. The population votes for the status quo. Deviation from that would’ve led to her loss. You weren’t going to get another Sanders in the time she had.
Oh, well then, my congratulations to President Harris on winning the election.
No they fucking don't vote for the status quo when the status quo is fucked. Trump at least postures that he's different (even though he's more of the same) which is why it's hardly surprising that he won.
No Trump was not a fluke, but you’d assume in the Information age someone so blatantly acting against your interests wouldn’t be your pick.
He wasn't my pick.
Dems aren’t ever going to solve anything either way. It’s just a nicer environment for the rest of us to try and do so.
And what does trying to do so look like? Would it, perhaps, involve forming an organization, say, a party, that actually represents the interests of the people?
They vote for the status quo when there is an algorithmic conservative fear beast under their bed.
Your choice was to vote to prevent Trump getting in or to enable it.
And no it involves building up parallel institutions, counter-economic systems, mutual aid networks on the grassroots level outside the states control.
They vote for the status quo when there is an algorithmic conservative fear beast under their bed.
No, they don't! If you were right, she'd have won! How can you possibly assert this in direct contradiction to the evidence?
And no it involves building up parallel institutions, counter-economic systems, mutual aid networks on the grassroots level outside the states control.
Right, so exactly like what PSL does.
The PSL is a joke man. When will you give this up? They will never see themselves with a legitimate candidate because they don’t do a single thing to position themselves as a serious contender.
Them, just like all other third party shitshows only ever show up at the 11th hour to play election spoiler by collecting the votes from idiots too ignorant to know any better.
If they really want to make a run at candidacy, they’d make a name for themselves the other three and a half years between elections.
But they don’t.
No one will take them seriously until they start moving ground. Until then, they’re going to remain the joke that they are.
What evidence? Both statements can be true
- Kamala implementing policies you wanted would’ve lost her enough votes to make winning impossible
- she lost enough votes from safe votes who opted out due to people equating Trump and Kamala
PSL? Pakistani Super League?
What evidence? Both statements can be true
- Kamala implementing policies you wanted would’ve lost her enough votes to make winning impossible
- she lost enough votes from safe votes who opted out due to people equating Trump and Kamala
In that case her defeat was inevitable and none of this matters. I reject that defeatism because her strategic errors are obvious and many. If establishment democrats don't see a path to victory, they should get out of the way and let someone with more vision have a try.
PSL?
It was with the sentiment generated by never-genocide voters, sure.
Socialism? In America? After decades of red scare hysteria and hypertardation? Gerrymandering and vote suppression? Doubt it.
What’ll work is a truly freed market. Not in the AnCap sense but in the anti-capitalist (and anti-collectivist) sense.
The path we're on is fundamentally unsustainable. Something will have to give. Free markets are not capable of addressing human needs and the collective crises we're facing, but regardless, you won't be getting any change in any direction except the steady decline into dysfunction and right-wing extremism that we've been getting so long as the two party system remains hegemonic.
You can punch left all you want, but again, the anti-genocide voters did not swing the election. Regardless, you people all have a completely upside-down conception of politics. Politicians must change to conform to the values that voters have, not the other way around, it's completely backwards to blame masses of people for holding onto valid moral convictions rather than blaming the politicians that failed to account for and accommodate those convictions. It's just bootlicking, I find it quite spineless and repulsive frankly, and it's very sad to me that anyone could have such a feckless way of thinking about politics.
Again, not free markets in the ancap sense. A truly freed market requires us to dismantle all non-state forms of coercion and privilege that distort economic interactions.
There is nowhere left of me to punch. I’m punching up at the Auths who think reform is a viable path to liberation.
Election wasn’t lost because of values it was because people are easily manipulated to vote against their interests.
Again, not free markets in the ancap sense. A truly freed market requires us to dismantle all non-state forms of coercion and privilege that distort economic interactions.
There is nowhere left of me to punch. I’m punching up at the Auths
"Distort economic interactions" is idealist nonsense, as is this whole conception of a "truly freed market." Here in reality, groups pursue their own interests, and in a capitalist system, wealth will concentrate enough that the bourgeoisie will inevitably be able to seize power and change the laws to create a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, unless they are prevented from doing so through "Auth" means. "Auth" is not a real political alignment, it's a bedtime story your rulers tell you to make sure you don't get any funny ideas about trying to actually wield power or challenge them. There is only one physical reality, and what happens in that reality is a function of who holds power and what they do with it. When starving peasants are storming the gates of the rich to seize their food, what is more or less authoritarian, to stop them, to help them, or to sit back and watch? It is a nonsense concept.
who think reform is a viable path to liberation.
What zero theory does to a MFer.
Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments? - V.I. Lenin
Even if only a fairly large minority of the industrial workers, and not “millions” and “legions”, follow the lead of the Catholic clergy—and a similar minority of rural workers follow the landowners and kulaks (Grossbauern)—it undoubtedly signifies that parliamentarianism in Germany has not yet politically outlived itself, that participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses. Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.