I love how divisive this is without respect to gerrymandering.
If democrat politicians weren’t so shit it wouldn’t be so close in the first place
Good thing the republican ones are so much better, them being in power, right?
You’re right. Republicans are awful. Trump is awful. The Republicans handed the election to Democrats on a silver platter, and the DNC still managed to fuck it up.
The election was drastically skewed to the right due to tiktok and youtube propoganda.thats whT created the entire move,ent to stay home to protest Gaza. Proor to 6 months before the election, I didnt heard Jack ahit about Gaza.
If we’re ever going to fix our elections, we need to do something about influencer astrofurfing. Influencer need regulation and to be held responsible for the ahit they spew.
You want to hand the president even more power? Are you insane?
I had to re-read their comment because this confused me… They said nothing about the president, or handing them more power? It almost reads like you replied to the wrong comment.
Why does this comment have 5 points atm? Who upvotes this?
Wanting the government to regulate free speech is putting that power directly in the hands of the executive branch. that’s why it’s not done… yet
Sure, all the DNC and not, you know, millions of nonvoters and such who decided it didn’t matter.
I cast my vote and played your stupid game. What have you done besides lick blue boot?
what about the former statement makes yours occur?
deleted by creator
Vote in primaries, run for office.
You know I’ve had a DNC member admit to me that they intentionally kill primary campaigns, right?
Well some progressives managed to snook in. We need more.
Lose rigged primaries
This community is still in denial from last year I see, I guess none of you braindeads learned your lesson huh
Even funnier now that the DNC approved candidate is running as a 3rd party in NYC after losing his own primary. Suddenly no issue voting for an independent candidate there.
-
Many core issues were addressed, from climate change to women’s rights and LGBTQ+ rights, to concerns over economy (which were improving and have since been downgraded).
-
Opponent was objectively worse in Every. Single. Conceivable way. It is after all, a binary choice.
-
Uncommitted fucked off entirely on their, absent of any comparative logic.
The biggest thing that comes out of reading threads like this is the erosion of my original belief that I thought the uncommitted were at least smarter and strategic and and more empathetic and more aware of FPTP voting. There is one big reason why Trump won: People were duped by endless amounts of billionaire’s money, seeing Trump at his best and Harris at her worst. I thought folks like you were above that; but alas, you drank the kool-aid just the same.
Edit: For the record, I think massive change in the Democratic party must come. That is not an easy task, but it’s the easiest path.
-
Y’all are still doing this? It was moderates who lost you the election, now stop crying about it.
That would require investigating the underlying reasons for election failure instead of the smug vibes-based ‘analysis’ that centrists prefer
the character in the comic is not a nonvoting democrat (the subject of your linked article).
I did not vote democrat because I am not a democrat and therefore not a nonvoting-democrat. The democrat party did not convince me to cast my vote for their candidate. Just like now I am not a republican either. I did not vote republican.
Democrats lost because they neglected to consider just how important it could have been for their candidate to fucking come out against israel. It’s all she had to do: promise to not send a single dime to genocidal fascists. she had years of opportunity to fight her own president for that kind of change too.
Look what we got “instead.” A fascist who supports genocide.
Both parties are very much the same: capitalist.
the democrat party
Propaganda.
(for the unaware: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet))
huh. news to me. good to know. It would help, grammatically, if their party was not named after a concept/philosophy. It’s reminding me of “data are” vs “data is.”
though the democrats have been decidedly less democratic as of late, seems more like the acknowledgement of that fact then just a pejorative. if the shoe fits maybe they should do something about it.
That poll says nothing about non-voters
But also:
The Democratic Party needs to come to terms with the real reasons it lost the presidency in November, including that after over a year of unprecedented protests and calls for Biden to stop sending weapons to Israel, party leadership failed to listen to its own voters who overwhelmingly want their government to end its complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
That poll says nothing about non-voters
It literally fucking does, at the top, in big fucking letters.
But also:
Yes, there are multiple culprits, and the party is one of them. No one fucking here on Lemmy is questioning whether the Dem party is at fault, but half the fucking place seems to think that voters allowing fascism is just Fine, Actually, because it teaches the shitlibs a lesson at the expense of the lives of marginalized groups, whom they apparently don’t give a flying fuck about when it’s not Virtue Signaling Hour.
It literally fucking does, at the top, in big fucking letters.
This is what I see:
No one fucking here on Lemmy is questioning whether the Dem party is at fault
To use one of your own phrases, “fucking what”
“Biden 2020 Voters Who Did Not Vote For Harris”
It’s literally in your fucking screenshot.
To use one of your own phrases, “fucking what”
I’m sorry, is there some secret cabal of “Harris/the DNC did nothing wrong” posters that doesn’t come around here, or are you just extrapolating that position to anyone who dares say voters share some fucking blame for literally allowing fascism because it gave them good feelies?
“Biden 2020 Voters Who Did Not Vote For Harris”
Which could mean a bunch of things, including the thing right next to it that I highlighted: “who cast a ballot for someone besides harris”
I’m sorry, is there some secret cabal of “Harris/the DNC did nothing wrong” poster
This is some next-level denial.
Okay and? When you have numbers nearly reaching 40%, what you’re looking at isn’t hyper-radical moral purity leftists; the majority of these people are almost certainly everyday people who also happen to have something resembling a conscience. There’s still no evidence to support a crusade against radical commies who ruined everything, which are clearly the people being addressed/mocked here. Unless you think 40% of Biden-voting non-voters in Arizona are Very Serious Leftists, in which case, uh… yeah.
-
The idea that ‘everyday people’ in the US are that interested in foreign affairs is not realistic. Foreign affairs are, unfortunately, almost purely the domain of the already-deeply politically involved, who tend not to be moderate ‘everyday people’.
-
Peddling narratives has consequences, yes, even online! Christ, I wish I still believed that online circlejerks didn’t affect REAL politics, but this is the post 2016 world we have the misfortune of living in, and especially the post-COVID world where traditional news media regurgitates whatever is loudest and latest in online media. The people saying things like “The Dems are just as bad as the GOP on Gaza! Don’t vote for KAMALACAUST!” were absolutely contributors to nonvoters, and especially nonvoters who had previously voted for Joe fucking Biden, of all people, but suddenly decided that HIS well-known and lifelong Zionism was a disqualifier for his V fucking P
-
If your view is that any anti-Israel policy in the US is moderate, you have a lot to learn about the US - unfortunately, all of it bad. Simply conditioning aid in the Democratic party was still a distinctly minority view as late as September in 2024, even though favorability of Israel had dropped lower than it’s ever been before.
-
Occasionally foreign policy issues can filter to the wider electorate. See: Ukraine. See also: WWII. Trump certainly wasn’t campaigning on the issue because it’s something only lefties care about.
-
Context matters. It’s one thing to be a hyperdedicated Zionist during peacetime; it’s another to be one during a genocide. People can see and act based on the difference. Also the narrative was almost entirely “vote blue no matter who” even among progressives. If someone picked out the voice of dissent to listen too, then that’s because they liked what they heard, not because they were mindlessly led along by what they heard online. At this point to even have a chance you’d need to eliminate all dissent, and even then it’s likely some of those people would simply become the dissent. By all dissent I also mean Arab-Americans who were having friends and family murdered and just didn’t care anymore, anyone who follows global news with any frequency and Republicans ready to exploit any political weaknesses in the Democrats’ position.
-
People can have views from more than one point of the political spectrum. Every now and then on European communities you’ll see people with left-leaning views say something about immigrants taking their jobs, so yeah.
Occasionally foreign policy issues can filter to the wider electorate. See: Ukraine.
Very few people outside of the politically engaged core gave a serious shit about Ukraine even before the propaganda came pouring in through Fox and OANN, which is why Trump and the GOP becoming extremely hostile to Ukraine was done without a fucking peep from their base, and without much outcry from Democrats.
See also: WWII.
… the American electorate literally did not care about WW2 before we entered, and there was considerable opposition even to the limited aid offered by the FDR administration until Pearl Harbor. Like, even American national museums on WW2 and public schooling systems acknowledge this apathy.
Trump certainly wasn’t campaigning on the issue because it’s something only lefties care about.
Trump was campaigning on the issue because:
-
There is an extremely strong Israeli lobby in the US which distributes literal hundreds of millions of dollars to ‘supportive’ candidates.
-
There is a core of politically involved right-wingers in this country with strong foreign policy views. They are certainly not moderates or everyday people, which is what I specifically said; I did not restrict foreign policy interest to leftists, but to politicos.
-
Unfortunately, many Jews in this country, while formerly more Palestine-sympathetic than the general population (polls post Oct 7 have been mixed), still have a great emotional attachment to Israel and view support of Israel positively. Polls pretty consistently show a very strong majority of Jewish-Americans maintaining, by their own admission, a strong emotional support for the state of Israel.
-
Trump was not campaigning on stopping Gaza, but on explicitly making the genocide worse in support of Israel, which is a distinctly right-wing view. Furthermore, aside from the specifics of the foreign policy, it gave him a chance to, in typical fascist strongman fashion, beat his chest about how cruel he would be to brown people, which his racist, savage base adores. This is also why he pretended to be ‘hard on ISIS’ and then ignored the issue once he was actually in office. No one who voted for him actually fucking cared about ISIS - they just wanted to hear him talk about how he was going to murder Muslim families for the crime of being related to suspected terrorists.
Context matters. It’s one thing to be a hyperdedicated Zionist during peacetime; it’s another to be one during a genocide. People can see and act based on the difference.
Bruh, you and I both know that this genocide has been going on for decades. Furthermore, it’s not like this was a fucking secret, which is why I was so skeptical of claims early in 2024 that opinions were changing - mainstream media outlets in the 2010s reported on Israeli war crimes regularly, and Americans didn’t give a flying fuck. Seeing a Palestinian kid blown the fuck apart by an Israeli artillery strike was one of my first introductions to the issue on a more-than-surface level.
Also the narrative was almost entirely “vote blue no matter who” even among progressives.
… were we not on the same Lemmy? Fuck, man, mainstream outlets were reporting on such ‘cute’ nicknames as “Genocide Joe” and “Kamalacaust”, both centrist and left-wing American media outlets. There was clearly some amount of penetration of the far-left “Bothsides” narrative into the mainstream, especially since media outlets tend to be cautious in repeating such things.
If someone picked out the voice of dissent to listen too, then that’s because they liked what they heard, not because they were mindlessly led along by what they heard online.
… what the fuck is the difference between those two ideas?
At this point to even have a chance you’d need to eliminate all dissent, and even then it’s likely some of those people would simply become the dissent.
How would it require eliminating all dissent for a fraction of people who voted for Joe fucking Biden in 2020 to vote for someone less pro-genocide than Joe fucking Biden in 2024?
By all dissent I also mean Arab-Americans who were having friends and family murdered and just didn’t care anymore,
Apparently they didn’t care about themselves or the family and friends remaining in Gaza. But of course, there was also a plurality of Arab-Americans in Michigan, one of the most Arab-American states in the country, who voted for fucking Trump, so I don’t know how much water the “They were really worn out by Gaza and just couldn’t support someone who insufficiently opposed the genocide” argument carries.
anyone who follows global news with any frequency
Again, that’s not your ‘everyday, moderate voter’ in America.
and Republicans ready to exploit any political weaknesses in the Democrats’ position.
… aren’t we supposed to try to suppress the effects of their activity…?
People can have views from more than one point of the political spectrum. Every now and then on European communities you’ll see people with left-leaning views say something about immigrants taking their jobs, so yeah.
Alright, then that leads to the issue that non-Dem leaning voters were considerably less likely to be anti-Israel, and considerably more likely to be pro-Israel? Your average moderate was not fucking sitting there thinking about Gaza.
-
-
-
Granted anyone who either didn’t vote but would have voted Dem, voted for trump because they were “on the fence” somehow, or chose to vote 3rd party but otherwise would’ve voted Dem contributed to this outcome.
That said, yeah the terminally online leftist vote is not what swung this election. I say that as a terminally online leftist who voted for killmala harmus anyway
I’m not saying the article doesn’t make some good points. But, much of it is self-contradictory. It says in the beginning of the article that we can rule out progressive appeals to voters as it was the more moderate voters that stayed home. By the end of the article its saying democrats need to appeal to voters by telling them how they will materially improve the lives of working people.
Focusing on how politics can improve lives of working people materially is literally a progressive appeal.
Definitely true; I’m only quoting the data.
I’m getting tired of this back and forth. This bickering is childish and our time would be better spent drumming up positive interest for ranked choice voting.
That’s a huge uphill battle, it’s outright banned in 17 states. Yes, we absolutely should be doing everything within our power to drum up positive interest, but absolute best case scenario it’s going to take several election cycles. We still need to make viable plans for the interim.
If it doesn’t happen now, many self-proclaimed ‘leftists’ aren’t interested.
Apparently the 60+ years of groundwork leading up the Russian Revolution just aren’t interesting enough for them.
If that’s an uphill battle then this useless bickering is a pitch black spelunking
That’s not a bad analogy actually: advocating third parties is like insisting we dive deeper down the cave, while everyone else insists it’s time to go back up. I’m not sure it’s useless bickering, we’re all tied together and the guy in the meme is endangering us all.
I don’t accept that. You clearly know nothing of the social/working movements of the early 1900s. The hallmark progressive achievenments made in this country, many that still exist today (to varying degrees ofc) were a result of literal blood, sweat and tears from third parties.
The Progressive Party led by Roosevelt, The Bull Moose Party with social reformers like Jane Addams and Florence Kelly, the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs… all of these were most prominent in fighting for and ultimately producing a cluster of social welfare, social insurance reforms, women’s suffrage, workers rights/5 day work week, etc.
It was the dedication, pressure and will to not fall in line trying to change the two-party duopoly from within but to build their own movements, their own coalitions on the outside, and thus the mainstream parties were eventually forced to inscribe the populus demands into legislation.
Healthy third parties are a good thing. It builds actual pressure on your legislators. Politicians wont work on your behalf when they know you’re voting for them anyway — they’re lining their pockets with money from the bourgeois they actually legislate for. Seeking the change you wish to see via third party can and has produced monumental value for the working class.
But sure continue spelunking and misplacing your frustrations on your fellow worker instead of holding your desired candidate/party accountable for their bs offering. We’ll keep climbing that hill in the meantime.
Got it, you don’t actually think bickering is useless, you just want the people who disagree with you, even partially, to shut up. Very cool.
You clearly know nothing of the social/working movements of the early 1900s.
Why would that be relevant? That was a century ago. The world is different, people are different, there’s been a century of anti-left propaganda. It’s a fundamentally different situation. You can’t keep trying to use the 19th century playbook on the 21st. Update your models homie.
False. I never suggested bickering as a whole is useless. Sometimes it’s helpful to inform others, like I just did for you. You’re welcome.
And the fact that you willfully dismiss the invaluable lessons of the past, particularly with regards to class struggle, tells me all I need to know — as if a century is a long time ago, I have grandparents still alive born from that time period ha. Neglect history, continue to wander aimlessly.
Lol @ homie. Have a nice day
I’m not bickering, just informing you.
So is everyone you accuse of bickering. We’re informing you. That is the most basic premise of dialectics. Without the discussion of thesis and antithesis, there is no synthesis. When one party “informs” another and expects them to accept the thesis uncritically, that is autocracy.
I never neglected the lessons of the past, but they are most relevant to the conditions that produced them. You are neglecting all the history that happened in between. I spent a lot of time with my great grandmother born in 1915. The world is a very different place. We can’t keep dusting off grandma’s praxis.
You are also neglecting the most basic premise of materialism: align your actions to the actual conditions, not idealism. Continue to neglect materialism for idealism, and you will wander aimlessly.
who banned it 🤔
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho
That’s an awful lot of southern states. Iowa surprises me because that legalized same sex marriage before a lot of other states
Fancy that, it’s like the post was right.
democrats have a vested interest in preventing ranked choice voting and have already acted to prevent it in areas where it won. So i think fixing the democrats would have to be the first order of business
Agreed, but how do we get it implemented?
Holy shit is this a braindead take.
this yet again, still seething.
democrat failure is a failure of the democrats. they knew the assignment, they didn’t want to pay the price. they chose this reality instead
Anybody who wants to continue the same old same old is just someone who doesn’t want to TRY something else.
That’s total bullshit. The leftists don’t get a pass for not doing the absolute minimum to stop the fascists from taking power.
Barely anyone voted for third parties. I have much more blame for the people who didn’t bother voting than the people who voted third party.
I’ll also call out that “not bothering” ignores that a huge sect of the public gets their vote falsely purged, or has their polling location closed, or some other voter suppression tactic.
True, but I also read that the non voters were also about evenly split, it’s not like only the anti trump people stayed home.
He just had the popular advantage, mostly an indictment of the then status quo rather than an endorsement of Trump or indictment of Biden.
Oh this bullshit again
It’s nonstop everyday now. Super annoying. You can tell people who to vote for all you want but at the end of the day it’s their choice. Harping on it after the fact does absolutely nothing but push those people further away.
I feel like the reason there’s been a resurgance of posts rehashing this has to do with Zohran Mamdani winning a primary in the largest city in the United States. While being openly pro-palestinian AND using the Socialist word positively to boot.
If Harris had won it is highly plausible she would have endorsed Cuomo leading to Zohran’s loss.
Mamdani lends credibility to some of those 3rd party/non-voting/protest voters’ strategy.
I think this causes some… feelings.
Not really. New York’s mayoral election has ranked choice voting so it’s a different situation. Also, Cuomo is the 3rd party candidate at this stage - he’s running as an independant.
If Cuomo voters snake the election from Mamdani I hope Cuomo has his rapey fingers crushed in a subway.
If Harris had won it is highly plausible she would have endorsed Cuomo leading to Zohran’s loss.
We would also not have immigrants in concentration camps. So you know, it’s a trade off.
The US has been putting migrants in camps since the Obama days. Democrats are just better at pretending they don’t do it
This is simply not true. Detention centers under Obama are a world apart from the concentration camps under Trump. Trump is making camps with Alligator moats. He’s deporting people to countries they don’t come from. He’s sending them to prisons in El Salvador. Did Obama do those things also? No, he did not. Please cut the “both sides” crap because I have zero patience for this bullshit.
Oh boy, is the midterm bullshit already starting?
You’re blaming the one independent when there’s 80k red voters?
Of course, you can’t fix stupid. At least a communist can goddamn read, so they’re worth talking to.
You call this “talking to”?
Do you actually need a clarification, or do you just want to bicker?
I don’t want to bicker, it’s just confusing that people who are presumed worth talking to seem to almost exclusively be yelled at.
Kinda makes me wonder if maybe some of the people currently not worth talking to were previously subjected to a similar talking to.
Memes and humour are rhetoric, and speaking only for myself, I’d rather mildly joke about someone’s silly views rather than have a big grumpy debate with them. There’s a time and place to sit down and respectfully suss out a topic, and I think good comedy helps more than it hurts - even when a few people aren’t laughing.
That much is true, but I don’t think I wouldn’t call this “good comedy”, and judging from the replies in the thread - OP included - I don’t think it’s intended as a joke either, mild or otherwise. It is kinda amusing, in that victory is presented as always impossible, but I doubt that was intentional. This isn’t goodnatured ribbing, this is more, as the kids say, bait.
De gustibus some disputandum, as always
“Memes and humour are rhetoric”
Democrats absolutely hate this however. Remember how they reacted to the “genocide Joe” meme?
…Do you really just go around talking shit on a political party that isn’t even in control? I’m not even in that country, bruh
At least a communist can goddamn read
I wouldn’t say that looking at all these tankies and illiterates in Russia and China.
“I wouldn’t say that looking at all these tankies and illiterates in Russia and China.”
You people say this then turn around to lick the balls of Israel
It would be saying you are perfectly ok with either candidate over the other. If you say Trump is worse, but the Democrat didn’t earn my vote so I didn’t, that’s pretty aggravating to hear. If you truly felt both options were equally bad, well I can’t imagine that perspective but at least that’s a rational stance for going none of the above with a different vote.
It often sounds like you will only vote for the perfect candidate who agrees fully with you on every thing, which is an impractical ideal.
All this said, the numbers didn’t break in a way for those third party voters to actually have mattered this time around, so despite how frustrated people may be, there’s nothing rational in harping on it for 2024.
Sadly, they both “may” be equally bad. The dems hide it well, trump flaunts it. But they both serve only the elite. Clinton was an epstien friend. And he endorsed cuomo for NY mayor because the party asked him to. They say they want to do things that help the people. But whenever the chance comes, they somehow just can’t do it. We need more parties to at least make it so people can’t just run and win by not being then other guy.
And notice how they mostly just take turns being in charge. Either it is part of thier plan, or it is just proof that neither side actually does enough to be worth voting in repeatedly. Cause they could… but they won’t. I’m from Oregon, so my vote doesn’t matter either way. We always go blue. At least that means we get less election propaganda in the mail and on the phone.
3 options. 2 outcomes.
It would be nice yes
In summary
Vote blue no matter who:
Pro - Democrats more likely to win. Things won’t immediately get worse.
Con - Democrats have no incentive to do anything other than what their wealthy donors want.
Result - Things don’t get worse now, but eventual rightward drift is guaranteed because the democrats will do nothing good and the republicans will win eventually.
Vote blue only if X:
Pro - Democrats have an incentive to do something other than what their wealthy donors what, in theory.
Con - Democrats less likely to win.
Result - Democrats might do something good if they win. Rightward lurch is possible if they lose.
Can we please stop litigating this now?
Edit: The “best” approach would ultimately depend on the relative effectiveness of influencing democrat policy via primaries or whatever, and I don’t think the answer is immediately obvious. I am not advocating one approach over the other, I just want people to stop pretending the answer is obvious.
The democratic party prefed Trump over giving up some deeply unpopular positions. Truly insane.
Bro, all you gotta do is die and all your credit card debit is gone. If you just keep paying the bills, then the debt stays the same until you miss a bill, and then it gets worse. If you die then the debt goes away. Why keep perpetuating the cycle? Dying is the only way to get rid of debt.
That’s what your post sounds like
ITT: Lots of people who don’t understand that US presidential elections are a binary choice, and one of them is going to be president.
