You're viewing part of a thread.
The Democrats insisted their candidate was good enough, but we weren't on board? We said that, and got ignored, and the Dems lost
Nobody was denying that was an outcome, just that it was a daft one. That's why they were trying to convince you it was daft. You could only say 'Told you so', if what they were saying wasn't true.
It wouldn't have changed the outcome regardless of how we voted or what we said. But the criticisms we were making weren't just about our own values or preferences, they were things that would have allowed her to appeal to a much broader section of the population. It was not our willingness to criticize and take a stand that caused this, but the Democrats' stubbornness and unwillingness to listen to criticism.
Ultimately, it just goes to show the necessity of building a better party from the ground up. The one thing Democrats are supposed to be good for is keeping Trump out, they've abandoned any pretence of actually helping people or not committing mass murder, and they can't even do that. It's a sinking ship.
It introduced apathy that could’ve changed the outcome. You’re not including all the people who didn’t vote.
There were no easy policies that would’ve led to victory. Doesn’t matter if the policies are objectively good or popular as she was up against a misinformation machine. She ran a near perfect campaign in the time she had. And Biden only came back initially because yous already voted Trump in once. You got exactly the government you deserve unfortunately.
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.
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?
I guess you prefer anti-democratic felon rapists over run-of-the-mill Democrats.
Thanks for being honest about it.
Which third party candidate is an anti-democratic felon rapist?
If you're implying that I'm not voting for the Democrats and thereby supporting Trump, sleep well knowing I didn't vote Blue in 2016 or 2020 either.
Which third party candidate is an anti-democratic felon rapist?
Right over your head.
If you’re implying that I’m not voting for the Democrats and thereby supporting Trump
I'm not implying. It's a simple fact. One that you don't appear to be capable of understanding.
But please, keep being a stable genius by voting for candidates that cannot, and will not, win until their parties do the work necessary to become viable, which they aren't.
That shit makes you look real smart.
They don't win because people don't vote for them. People would literally rather support a party that doesn't align with their views. That's the part going over your head.
People would literally rather support a party that doesn’t align with their views.
Wow. They must be dumbfucks.