this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
520 points (97.6% liked)
Political Memes
5616 readers
1442 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Apathy doesn't get sown, enthusiasm does. Apathy is the default and it's the job of a politician to inspire.
Sounds like youve never heard of FUD
It's hard to spread FUD about establishment Democrats when they are all clones. America knows exactly what to expect from a Democrat, and it's not much.
We have a DNC election coming up very soon, and the midterms after that. This is the time to challenge what it means to be a Democrat. If Rahm Emanuel gets the DNC chair, then the next ten years look to be very much like the last ten.
There is no chance democrats will win any elections as long as people like yourself keep shitting on them. More democratic voters will stay home or vote republican or 3rd party and the GOP will get more power and our lives will get worse.
So, it's not what Democrats do in office that matters. It's not how they dodge and weave every question in every interview until nobody even remembers what was asked. Democrats lose because people are mean to them? Is nobody ever mean to Republicans then?
What democrats do does matter. That’s why we shouldn’t do the GOPs job for them by sowing apathy for democrats. Because that leads to the GOP gaining power. That’s why FUD exists.
Whatever apathy was down, Democrats did it to themselves. Our job right now is to crush the damn establishment that is intent on continuing to do it. They are trying to throw out a million reasons why this loss was anything but their fault, just so they can go back to business as usual. That cannot happen again.
If you think infighting hurts a party, then why the hell do the Republicans own all three branches? Infighting is critical to prepare the party and build a narrative where voters know what the party is about.
No, now is not the time to play nice with the establishment that got us here. They are lining up a new batch of clones as we speak.
If you want to help the Democrats, then get behind Ben Wikler (best option I've seen so far) out of Wisconsin for the DNC chair position. The establishment is going to try and quietly shuffle one of their useless clones while nobody is looking, so look, and tell everyone you know to look. Write to your Democratic representatives and tell them the party needs to find it's feet again with actual leadership that knows how to connect with working class voters.
Republicans took all 3 branches because they don’t criticize their own party. And they attack anyone who does. And they show up to vote no matter what because they don’t get apathetic towards their own party.
What planet do you live on? Ever hear of the Lincoln Project? Do you not remember the Republicans throwing out their own Speaker of the House?
The turnout thing is accurate to a point, but is almost always (intentionally) misunderstood. The more left a voter gets, the more engaged they are, and the more likely they are to show up and vote for Democrats. That has been shown in multiple studies and is well understood even by establishment bobbleheads.
It's the vast sea of disengaged and ideologically confused working class Americans that sometimes show up and sometimes don't. We know how to reach these people, and the Democratic establishment just isn't that interested. Their process is to message to these folks just enough to get 51% in swing states. That's what keeps the margins so consistently tight, and Republicans win because reality doesn't always conform to Democratic expectations.
In order to do better, Democrats have to be willing to anger their patrons. That's not something they have been willing to do.
What was unique in this election is that the Republicans managed to pick up a lot of those voters. This election wasn't swung by voter turnout. The unreliable voters turned out, but they turned out for Republicans. Democrats have now officially become the party of the wealthy,band Republicans are now the party of the working class. That's obviously an insane disaster, and it's pathetic that anyone is still defending the Democratic establishment.
Care to share those studies?
What’s your source for this claim?
Who’s “we” and what makes you so confident that you know how to reach “these people”?
What’s your source for this claim?
Better in what way?
Which indicates that these voters wanted someone furthest right. Meanwhile progressives claim the opposite is true: that democrats need to go further left.
To not support democrats is to support republicans.
Why? Is your belief that progressives don't show up based on anything but establishment talking points? But sure, I'll do some work for you. See this Pew study.
Progressives, this, and this.
Um, get votes? I thought that was pretty obvious.
Or, maybe the political universe can't be captured in a single dimension. Most of the American public (barely) pays attention to politics for 3-4 months every 4 years. They aren't exactly policy wonks. The dominant measure today is populist vs establishment. People don't know what they believe, but they do know that neither party establishment gives two shits about them. They wanted a disruptor, and astoundingly they managed to figure out which candidate that was. Not that Trump will do shit for them, but they will learn that (again) soon enough.
Do you know where left and right come from? It was the French parliament after the revolution. The left stood with the people, and the right stood with royalty. Democrats need to stand with the people. As I said above, left vs right political theory isn't something that most voters (or politicians if we're being honest) give a shit about. But, with growing inequality and corporate overreach, people do want politicians taking their sides. Trump had more leftist rhetoric than the Democrats.
Supporting Democrats and supporting the Democratic Establishment are two different things. I don't give a shit about red vs blue, but I know that one party is more assailable than the other, so that's where I look to make change for a better world.
Nope, it’s based on the progressive talking point that democrats lost because Harris wasn’t far enough left. You’re not doing work for me. I didn’t make the claim. If you can’t be bothered to back up your own claims then they aren’t worth anything.
Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see any source for that map. How did they get the numbers? What are the numbers? It just looks like someone colored a bunch of land and put some names on it. Not to mention it’s a Reddit post.
You’re confident that you know how to reach people that won’t vote democrat because of a town hall of Bernie? I must be missing something.
I’m not going to debate based on assumptions. Use your words.
Voters chose the candidate furthest to the right, it doesn’t get any more conclusive than that when it comes to whether voters want a candidate that’s further left.
The origins of left and right dont change anything. Just to be clear, I’d vote for a more progressive candidate. But they wouldn’t win in my red state. Moderates have won before though because they get a mix of voters that is larger than just right or left. And if our democracy is on the line then it isn’t time to let perfection be the enemy of progress.
If progressives keep sowing apathy for the Democratic Party then less people will vote democrat and the GOP will keep growing in power. That is, if we get to vote again, considering Trumps rhetoric.
Same here. But I don’t sow apathy for the better option because that gives voters a reason to not vote for that option and it doesn’t take a lot of voters staying home to lose an election.
Is that a talking point? If so, progressives aren't sticking to it very well. I mean, it's true, but only because being further left is also further populist. Progressive analysis is far more extensive than "not left enough". What you are talking about is a straw man constructed by establishment democrats. You love sources, so show me one progressive arguing this way.
I am, because this stuff is easy to lookup, and your arguments are nothing but uncritically accepted vibes.
It's a map of individual donors by county in the 2020 Democratic primary. The reddit link was the first to come up when I searched. I'll find you a better link as soon as you show me a progressive saying Democrats lost because they weren't left enough.
If I have to explain to you that Democrats doing better in elections means getting more votes, I'll be writing fucking novels. How about using your mind just a little?
That's a little understated. You don't see the significance of the furthest left Democratic candidate getting through to a fox news audience as applicable to the question?
You really don't get it and, at this point, I'm happy to just leave it that way.
You say it’s true but claim it’s a straw man constructed by establishment democrats, which is it? You’re contradicting yourself. Every thread on lemmy regarding Harris losing has someone saying it and now I can add you to the sources since you’re saying it’s true.
That’s not how the burden of proof works. You make the claim, you provide evidence to support the claim. Otherwise your claim is made up. If that needs to be explained to you then It’s no wonder you’re posting Reddit threads of screenshots with no sources as a source for your claims.
My source is the comment section of every post on lemmy regarding Harris losing. If I share an article claiming the same you’ve already primed the argument that it’s an establishment democrat straw man while also admitting it’s true.
This is how people making bad faith arguments move the goalpost. They make vague statements and when they are proven wrong they say they weren’t talking about that thing you assumed, they were referring to something else. The only way to prevent this is to call it out and make them be specific about their statements.
For that to be applicable to the question, he would have to be the only one that did it… Harris interviewed on Fox News also.
So I guess I’m not missing something, you are.
I’m sure you’re happy to run away without any sources to your claims.
It's definitionally true that the left says the centrist should move left. That's what makes them the left. The actual left analysis over why she lost doesn't begin and end with wanting her to move left. As I said before, mapping voters out on a right to left spectrum is not an accurate representation of voting preferences. Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney was supposed to appeal to right leaning voters but backfired because it fed the narrative of Harris as a warmonger. Meanwhile Trump was coding himself as anti-war. The fact that Trump's anti-war signaling was bullshit couldn't be effectively countered because Harris had aligned herself with right wing war mongers. She damaged herself with the very same right leaning voters that she was trying to appeal to. Likewise with bragging about support from Wall Street and the nation's CEOs. The theory that doing so would appeal to right leaning voters was misguided because populists on the right hate those people. Harris made herself the candidate of the wealthy, the deep state, and the status quo, everything that Trump has successfully branded himself as opposing. The left is used to Democrats leaning right because that's been a constant since at least Bill Clinton. But Harris making rightward moves that damaged her with right leaning voters was insanity. The Democratic establishment lives in a bubble that hasn't changed it's modeling since the 90s.
Asking for evidence to a claim is fine, but not when done in bad faith. First of all, I am not the only one here making claims.
Second of all, you are nitpicking half the links I gave, while ignoring what you can't nitpick. You made no acknowledgement of that Pew study at all. I supplied my proof, and my complaint was for having to cast pearls before swine and the shitty way you went about asking for it without providing any evidence of your own claims, or even arguments as to why your claims should be believed.
As I said, I'll be happy to find a better link for you on the fundraising map, as soon as you start providing some evidence for your own bald assertions. It's not going to be a one way street.
Well, you would know bad faith arguments, but that's hardly applicable in this case. We are talking about how Democrats perform in elections so there is no reasonable ambiguity when I refer to Democrats "doing better". That's the last I'm going to say on this dumb side argument.
An interview is not a town hall, and I didn't just say that Bernie did a town hall on Fox, I linked to the video. Unlike Harris' interview, the town hall included a right leaning audience that was responding well to left leaning arguments, which directly addressed what you asked me to address.
If you want to move the goalposts and look at just election results, that's fine. Look into how many voters who split their ticket between AOC and Trump, and what they said when interviewed. You can find your own links until you start supporting your claims with something other than repetition.
No republicans I know have referred to Harris as a warmonger but I have heard complaints from progressives about her stance on Gaza. So your comment implies that her campaigning with Cheney backfired by costing her votes from progressives. Which reinforces what you claim to be an establishment democrat narrative: that an increase amount of progressives didn’t vote for Harris in 2024. So you’re contradicting yourself again.
Again, I've only heard complaints from progressives about her stance on the war in Gaza. In my experience republicans only complained about the money being spent in Gaza and Ukraine because they were told that was the cause of inflation.
Since the 90s there have been 9 presidential elections and democrats have won 5 of them. It makes perfect sense for them to continue with at least some of the strategies that have earned them the majority of elections.
How is asking for evidence done in bad faith? By doing so I found out that there was some truth to your claim that people on the further ends of the political spectrum tend to be more engaged.
Also I found out that there was no credibility to your claim that “we” know how to reach people and that democrats can’t be interested.
I pointed out that a screenshot of a heat map with no legend or any of the required information like quantity of donors or quantity of donations posted on Reddit, is not evidence of anything. That’s not nitpicking. That’s telling you what you should already know.
The Pew study showed that people furthest left and right on the spectrum were more politically engaged. They defined that as taking more about politics and being more likely to vote. Your claim was that the further left someone’s ideology the more likely they are to vote and vote democrat. I acknowledge the Pew study supports that they are more likely to vote but it doesn’t say they vote democrat, they are just as likely to be voting 3rd party.
What bald assertions are you referring to? I told you why I claimed that progressives didn’t show up to vote for Harris. I acknowledge that it is based on anecdotal evidence. You reinforced that anecdotal evidence by saying it’s true.
Yes, this isn’t my first day on the internet. For that reason I am familiar with bad faith arguments. “Doing better” could imply a better approval rating, more progressive policies, higher voter turnout, winning over more republican voters, winning over more progressive voters, earning more seats in Congress or the house and on and on. I didn’t even put effort into all the different things “doing better” could refer to but you’re getting upset because I’m calling out a common tactic in bad faith arguments.
That “right leaning audience” sure did like his response about trusting scientists when it comes to corona virus and climate change. So the opposite of how a right leaning audience would respond. I live in a red state and there were political ads at this time of politicians killing Dr. Fauci. Those politicians won. This audience is far from “right leaning”.
Even Fox News’s Bret Baier Admits Harris Outsmarted Him in Interview
None of this supports your claim that progressives know how to win over the disengaged voters in the middle of the ideological spectrum.
This supports my point about the Pew study you shared: the farthest left voters are more likely to vote, just not necessarily for democrats.
Which brings us full circle back to my original point. A remarkable amount of progressives didn’t vote for Harris.
Split ticket voters offer some bracing lessons for the Democratic Party
There’s the evidence to support the claim.
You still haven’t supported your original claims.
Trump - JD Vance - Joe Rogan - Glenn Greenwald - Newsweek
Liz Cheney is far more hated by the right than the left. (A flaw with the left from my perspective.) BTW: I'm still waiting for any evidence whatsoever that progressives didn't show for Harris.
And every time the Democrats move to the right, so do the Republicans. That is the process that got us to Trump so, no, I don't think any sane person would look at where the country is today and pat the Democrats on the back. Aiming to be just a bit better than the Republicans just gives the Republicans space to be even worse. In the last 3 presidential elections, Democrats were so ineffective that they lost to Trump. The working class of this country has been on a steady downhill road for the last 50 years, and the messaging Bill Clinton used doesn't work anymore.
Also, in at least one of those elections, Obama was the upstart populist candidate. Both Hillary and McCain were establishment candidates in that election. Obama then went full establishment as soon as he won, but his next opponent was Romney, who was also an establishment candidate. I don't expect the Republicans to be running another milquetoast establishment candidate for a long time. It could even be argued that Bill Clinton ran as a populist for at least his first run, then moved to the center just like Obama. Reagan absolutely ran as a populist.
I literally explained this immediately after I said it.
That's literally what the Pew study showed. Your unfounded and ridiculous argument that they vote Republican notwithstanding. You could argue that they disproportionately vote for third party candidates but, since the libertarian party regularly outperforms the greens, progressives are far more loyal than the right. Anyways, third parties were clearly irrelevant this cycle, so now you have to pretend progressives are voting for Republicans.
So, "just trust me bro". Anecdotal evidence, especially filtered though a partisan hack, is worthless.
Funny how you assume that AOC/Trump voters are progressives voting for a Republican and not conservatives voting for a progressive, or liberals voting for a conservative and a progressive. The only reason you assumed the first is because it reinforces what you already believe. A rational analysis would consider the possibility that there is some other factor at play than ideological self identification. If you actually looked into the interviews done with these voters you would have seen the answer. They aren't progressive, or liberal, or conservative. These are the voters I described before who don't even think about politics until right before an election, then vote based on vibes. I guarantee that you know a lot of these people. Their choice was made on the populist-establishment spectrum, not the left-right spectrum. When people's lives are shit, it's populist messaging that gets their vote.
You think establishment Democrats would be more popular without criticism from progressives, but you actually have it wrong. This is a populist age and you can't just make voters love the establishment, at least not without putting them in camps for brainwashing. With no populist left messaging, people aren't just going to swing to the establishment. They will go populist right. At least with a populist left making noise in the Democratic camp, people have a reason to think that Democrats hear them. There is at least a hope that the Democrats will address their problems. Establishment Democrats think bragging about a great economy just tells people they aren't seen. Even a con-artist like Trump seems like a better choice than just being invisible. When Democrats address this at all, it's with a throw-away line in a speech and crocodile tears. People need a narrative. Trump gave them one, and Harris didn't. Republicans nurture their populist base, while Democrats try to suppress theirs.
The context was voters calling Harris a warmonger, not republican mouthpieces.
The graph on you link is blocked by a pop up so I’ll have to take your words for it. In my experience though yes this is anecdotal voters were most influenced by inflation. Which is supported by these polls. Hated or not I don’t think she had a net negative result on the outcome.
Democrats have since started working with progressives like AOC and Bernie which is a move to the left. But you aren’t the first I’ve seen to claim otherwise by saying democrats have moved right.
Trump lost in 2020 and also lost the popular vote in 2016…
The pew study only showed that people on the farthest ends of the political spectrum were more likely to vote. It doesn’t support your claim that progressives voted democrat in 2024.
The example you brought up of voters in AOCs district who voted for Biden and AOC in 2020 but voted Trump and AOC in 2024 reflects that.
There isn’t conclusive evidence to support every claim. As long as we admit when we are referring to anecdotal evidence then we are arguing in good faith. That’s what I’ve been doing. You refuse to do that and want to treat your opinions and assumptions as fact.
There isn’t enough evidence to go into that much detail. But based on this:
AOC is left leaning indicating her supporters are too and in her district her supporters increased their votes for Trump in 2024 compared to 2020 and decreased their votes for the democratic candidate in 2024 compared to 2020. Meaning this is an example of left leaning voters voting for Trump in 2024.
AOC is left leaning. So for her to win, her district needs to be made up of enough left leaning voters. And when she asked them to explain why they voted for Trump this response indicates they were not conservatives voting for a progressive:
While it is not the most sophisticated method of surveying voters, the responses were swift and candid:
No, I think the 2024 election was one between fascism and the only other option which just happens to be what you call establishment democrat. I don’t care who the alternative to fascism is… they are better than fascism. And the undecided middle voters that don’t pay close attention, hear the criticisms from the left towards democrats along with the propaganda from the right towards democrats and the result was Trump winning. And if Trump gets what he wants we will never vote again.
Given the near unanimous reaction to the assassination of a health insurance CEO, I think the question of whether a populist message can sell across the spectrum is settled. Too bad the Democrats didn't harness that pent up anger to beat Trump.
There was never a question of whether a populist message can sell across the spectrum. That wasn’t even part of our conversation. By definition it will always be popular across the spectrum.
The conversation was about whether the criticism from progressives towards democrats sowed apathy in voters and whether that apathy decreased votes for democrats.
That started the conversation, but it's not the only thing you had wrong.
Democrats are shit at their jobs and happy to remain so. As long as that's true, expecting progressives to ignore it is ridiculous. The unanimity behind the assassination is proof that the energy was there and the Democrats ignored over a decade of progressive advice to use it. They'll do it again too if we can't overcome institutional inertia and force a change.
The right wing spin machine exploits this anger all by itself. Without progressives, there is absolutely no Democratic message that competes with right wing noise. There would be no rush to PBS and MS-NBC, it would be a rush to Fox, Ben Shapiro, and Matt Walsh. Americans don't know much, but they do know Democrats are full of shit. Media outlets trying to hold up the Democratic facade are all losing audience rapidly. The Democratic establishment is an unsellable product.
We know that GOP run ads to paint democrats in a negative light. They do this because it sways the opinion of voters to not vote for democrats. To pretend that that same cause and effect doesn’t exist when progressives do it is delusional.
If progressives knew how to reach people then they wouldnt be a minority in our government. Let alone a minority inside of the Democratic Party that you claim they are better than. But they are. Because they don’t know how to reach people. Making your claims inherently false whether you want to admit it or not. So you will continue to be wrong about that until progressives hold the majority of positions in our government.
The unanimity behind the assassination of the UnitedHealth CEO is just a sign of how bad our healthcare system is. Democrats are the only ones who have made improvements on our healthcare system. Unfortunately they weren’t able to do more because they had to compromise with the rest of Congress to get anything at all passed.
If progressives were any good at reaching people then they would have more seats in Congress and we would have a single payer healthcare system right now. But we don’t. Why don’t we? Because we don’t have enough progressives in Congress. Why don’t we have enough progressives in Congress? You guessed it! Because they don’t know how to reach people or win elections.
Progressives can’t even reach enough people to hold a majority inside the Democratic Party that you claim is unsellable.
Damn, full circle back to the same bullshit talking points. All of this has been answered. Too far gone I guess.
With screenshots in Reddit posts.
Let me know when progressives start winning elections.
I gave you everything you need to google it yourself and find the same information elsewhere, and I even offered to do it for you if you provided a link one single piece of supporting information for any of your assertions. All you did was add a new claim about inflation driving votes with a link to a page that didn't mention inflation at all. That's not the most ridiculous thing though. Nothing competes with this statement.
So, you are looking at where the country stands at this moment, and your thought is "gosh, the Democrats must be doing something right!" Never-mind that wealth inequality has skyrocketed over this period of stunning Democratic success. We might lose the entire new deal over the next four years, but the presidential scorecard isn't so bad! 5 out of 9, wow! If that isn't classic Democratic delusion, I don't know what is.
Of course that's not really the Democrat's fault, because some people online criticize them. Presumably the Republicans have swept all three branches because right leaning voters never criticize Republicans or fight back at all. The Tea Party? yeah, that wasn't a thing. Republicans ousting their own Speaker in a populist uprising? Never happened. MAGA is just a bunch of fine folks who give free hand-jobs to the Republican establishment.
Republicans are winning because their base fought harder against the establishment than the Democrat base did. Despite all the whining, progressives have consistently gone easy on the Democrats, and Democrats have consistently blamed progressives for their failures. I love how you keep pointing out that Progressives have effectively gained no power in the party yet, somehow, they are the only reason the party can't get it's act together. I don't know if you're just so emotionally invested in the Democratic establishment that it's blinded you, or if you are personally connected to the consulting gift machine that runs it. In either case, good luck on your insane quest to convince the Internet to not call out what's plain as day.
You trying to explain that progressives are better at winning elections, while they are losing elections:
Progressives did quite a bit better in this past election than corporate Democrats. But I won't argue that the establishment hasn't been really successful at beating progressives in primaries. Besides being clearly true, it would hardly be fair to rob them of credit for the only thing they do well.
But, primaries are not the same as general elections. Money impacts both, but it impacts primaries far more. There is far less free media available, and name recognition can be impossible to build without it. There is also the myth that progressives can't win general elections that makes voters reticent to nominate progressives. We see it over and over where the progressive platform is preferred, but the establishment candidate gets the nomination.
Cheap shots aside, any real analysis paints a very different picture. Establishment candidates do better when they lean left. Obama ran on "change" and won in a blowout. Then he went establishment and almost lost. Lucky for us the Republicans were only running establishment candidates against him. Hillary ran establishment vs right-populist and lost. Biden ran "progressive lite" against Trump's "establishment lite" and barely won. Kamala went right against fascist-right and lost. See the pattern?
Your only evidence is "anecdotal" by your own admission, but your pulling this shit? I work with a guy who's brother in law is a voter who totally thinks this, so I guess I'm right. I mean come on. Trump isn't a Republican mouth peace, he's the incoming President, and Vance is the incoming VP. This is shit they directly campaigned on because, presumably, they were under the impression that it would play with voters. Do you think Republican voters really think enough for themselves that what Joe Rogan says doesn't make a difference? Please. Just admit that you will piss on any and all evidence that contradicts your establishment worldview.
The page you linked to didn't mention inflation but I don't disagree, except that I'd say they were most influenced by their economic circumstances, and inflation was the most obvious manifestation of that issue. The inflation we had wasn't high enough to be a prime concern for voters who otherwise felt financially secure.
The context of that claim is important. I was talking about the last 50 years over which the Democrats have absolutely moved right. What I will agree with is that President Biden was a pleasant departure from that trend, even though Senator Biden had been one of the worst. The problem is that Harris did almost nothing to capitalize on what Biden had done. The most progressive move she made in the campaign was to bring on Walz, but then her campaign put him on a leash.
If you seriously assume that a significant number of people with enough political awareness to accurately self identify as progressives voted for Trump, then you are just delusional. The idea that the left-most voters would vote for the right-most candidate is the extraordinary claim that should require evidence. The Pew study also said they were more likely to donate and volunteer for campaigns. Do you figure they were knocking on doors for Trump too? Progressives carry the Democratic party, even after decades of the kind of bullshit your spreading.
Anecdotal evidence isn't even really a thing. Presenting anecdotes as evidence isn't de-facto bad faith, but it is when you come up with every excuse you can to ignore actual evidence.
Your logic is, let's say, imaginative. AOC is a progressive and progressives (in her district) vote for AOC. It does not follow from that statement that everyone who votes for AOC is a progressive or generally left leaning. Aside from being progressive, AOC is also an anti-establishment populist. It makes perfect sense that an anti-establishment voter would vote for AOC and Trump - especially if they are low information voters.
What exactly makes this candidate look left leaning to you? This is a classic low information voter response. "Last time I hit the blue button and didn't get a cookie, so this time I tried the red button". There is no ideology here. It's all vibes. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats had messaging that connected with this voter, so they made a Pavlovian mechanical choice.
Let's not confuse what the election was about from a consequences standpoint, and what is was about from an electoral narrative standpoint. I am in perfect agreement with how consequential this election was. My only disagreement is with the implication that it's just me calling Harris an establishment Democrat. That's just a statement of fact, not something controversial. There was no primary process that made her the candidate, in either 2020 or 2024. The party (and therefore the establishment running the party) placed her in that role.
If you take the criticisms from the left out of that sentence, those voters are just left with propaganda from the right. That's not going to be any better. If they are hearing criticisms from the left, then they are almost certainly hearing criticisms of Trump and the Republicans from the left, as well as good things about the Democrats. Biden's campaign did a far better job than Harris' campaign at acknowledging criticisms from progressives and promising to work with progressives once elected. It looked like the Harris campaign was moving in that direction with the Walz pick, but from the convention on she was more like Hillary than Biden in this regard.
You presumably want the left to continue voting for, donating to, and knocking on doors for Democrats, but you don't want the left to speak up when the Democrats oppose them. That's just not realistic, never-mind fair. From a left perspective, neoliberals are not our compatriots. At best establishment Democrats are untrustworthy allies. Our intention is ultimately to replace them in the seats of power. We exist as a critique of the Democratic establishment, and they are our adversaries more than anything else.
For decades, they've had chance after chance to prove themselves to the working class. Now, you dare suggest that the corporatist Christo-fascists will win if we don't keep voting in the same corporatist neo-liberal celebrity-fellators?
If the DNC establishment doesn't get tossed out on their ass during the next committee same primary election cycle, the average citizen is fucked.
We are already fucked. Fascism already won. We had to chose between democrats and fascism and people like yourself shit on democrats enough to convince enough voters to either stay home or vote Trump or 3rd party. Letting perfection be the enemy of progress. There’s no going back now.
You don't know anything about me. Furthermore, I don't think you're comprehending what I'm saying. Simply put, the Democratic establishment needs to be tossed out on their ass for gross incompetence. The way that's done is the vote for the DNC and the next round of primaries.
Apathy caused democrats to lose voters in the 2024 election. Sowing more apathy won’t improve voter turnout.
Their shitty platform is what makes people apathetic. Stop blaming the person who's just pointing at it.
So you’re saying the republicans won because their platform isn’t shitty?
No but their voters don't care
You just can't help yourself, can you?
You want to shit on our only alternative to fascism and then pretend you aren’t helping fascism win. Then claim anyone pointing that out is trolling.
Again, I don't advocate for apathy. I advocate for ousting the establishment DNC leadership by voting. Your reading comprehension sucks, or your half-assed trolling is obvious.
How do we “oust establishment DNC” by voting? Who is the establishment DNC? Are you saying we need to vote for the opposition? We need to vote in the primary? Haven’t we already been doing that? How do we know who is establishment and who isn’t?
You’re being vague and claiming my reading comprehension sucks because your aren’t actually saying anything.
I've pinched my nose and voted for Democrats my whole adult life in every election, donated to campaigns, voted in primaries, written to representatives and senators, been a member of a Union, and attended town halls, marches, and rallies. Don't ever talk to me about apathy.
Here is the DNC leadership.
Here are the next contenders for DNC chair.
Here's a site to track congressperson's voting records.
Go to and participate in the candidate forums in January. Ask pointed questions about what their strategy to contend with the GOP will be in light of the recent defeats. Watch who votes for who in the February DNC chair election.
Get the word out and vote in the primaries against representatives who willingly fellate corporatists and/or dance around the glaring failures of strategy, messaging, or are complicit in the disenfranchisement of the working class.
But honestly, anything I say will be just more food for your trolling, or you're butt-hurt when people call out failures and controlled opposition. Whatever it is, kick rocks barefoot.
I’ve done those things too. Without spreading apathy. Come down off your high horse.
This is actually a productive response that doesn’t involve sowing apathy towards the only alternative to fascism. Thanks, I’ll be doing these things and I’m being genuine when say that.
Aaaaaand you’re right back to cutting off your nose to spite your face. Maybe you’ve been unsuccessful in changing the Democratic Party despite all you’ve done because of your attitude.
How incredibly rich that you're trying to tone-police my "attitude" and "high horse", given your replies to me.
Make sure you wag your finger nice and hard while kicking rocks.
Pointing out your shitty attitude and condescending tone isn’t the same as policing it. By all means keep talking to people that way as you try to convince voters to join your revolution.