As long as when people want her to align more closely with the Dem voting base, you don’t yell at them for questioning the only option and imply they’re trying to help trump.
That bullshit only depresses Dem turnout and actually helps trump.
It’s just completely nonsensical to hear all the “moderates” claim they’d vote for anyone not trump, then go feral when someone points out banning fracking would hand the Dems Pennsylvania which trump needs to win the election.
There are multiple issues like that where if Kamala moved to the left she’d lock this election down.
If you truly only care about beating trump, your time online would be more productive trying to pull the party left than trying to pull tens of millions of voters to the right…
With the obvious benefit of getting those popular policies on top of beating trump.
Banning sales of arms to Israel would not only attract a huge proportion of otherwise reluctant leftists, but might even steal votes from Trump as a small but not insignificant number of voters have been fooled by his ‘started no wars’ con. The idea that doing so would lose some key demographic is clearly not supported by the data.
But the Democratic strategists are not idiots. They must know this. So one of two things is the case; the polling is wrong, or the Democrats have absolutely no desire to move leftward on this and are willing to risk a Trump win to hold out on their position.
We can rule out the first because if the Democrats had better poll data they’d share it. Nothing to lose by doing so.
So we’re left with the second.
Odd then that the online vitriol is delivered not to the Democrats for cynically risking a Trump victory, but to leftists for being opposed to genocide.
The idea that doing so would lose some key demographic is clearly not supported by the data.
They wouldn’t lose significant voters, theyd lose a bunch of donations…
It doesn’t cost a billion plus to beat donald trump, but the more money there is, the bigger everyone’s slice is and the bigger the bonuses for personally bringing more money is.
The DNC isn’t being run to get Dems in office, it’s a fucking grift where sometimes we do get a Dem in office.
Just never one who’s political policy matches Dem voters.
Look at current DNC leadership, it’s not people that know how to win elections, it’s just whoever can bring in the most donations.
The result is ridiculously expensive and incompetent campaigns. The solution is clearing house at the DNC.
The DNC isn’t being run to get Dems in office, it’s a fucking grift where sometimes we do get a Dem in office.
True. And a cushy consulting job, or a few thousand in bonuses seems like an understandable inventive, if a misanthropic one.
But for those who do the footwork supporting such a system, I just cannot see why. What have the Democrats done to deserve such blind obedience? Is being not-Trump just that impressive these days?
But the Democratic strategists are not idiots. They must know this.
They always move to the middle in every election chasing “independent” votes that they never get. I see no evidence from history that they “arent idiots”.
This is absolutely correct. I’m sure the 40% of voters who want to keep sending weapons to Israel aren’t even Harris voters. So clearly the Democratic party is only doing it for the love of genocide and it seems obvious that after they finish the genocide in Gaza and Lebanon they’ll shift their focus to genocide of Palestinians and other arabs living in America. This is completely unacceptable to me which is why I voted for Trump.
I thought about voting for a third party but I live in a swing state and want to minimize the chances of Koncentration Kamp Kamala from getting elected so I directly supported Trump rather than indirectly.
I live in a swing state and want to minimize the chances of Koncentration Kamp Kamala from getting elected so I directly supported Trump rather than indirectly.
I could no more vote Trump ‘tactically’ than I could Harris. I think one ought vote according to one’s concience. The whole notion of tactical voting makes a mockery of democracy, if no one could be persuaded to vote tactically there’d be significantly less ‘electioneering’. More like the Nordic model, with way more parties catering to a broader range of political views.
You only have to look at the current Democrat campaign, they barely need a policy at all, they’re running almost entirely on being not-Trump.
Ignores all the policy announcements Kamala made, complains that there aren’t any policies.
But yes, actually, being not Trump is an excellent reason to vote for Kamala, because there are only two possible outcomes of this election, and one of them is a wannabe dictator, KKK-supporting, idiot putin stooge, racist, hate-filled, selfish, duplicitous, personally disloyal, insurrectionist, unamerican, country betraying, diaper-wearing emotional crybaby thrower of money at the already super-rich, and frankly I’m tired of people pretending that he doesn’t desperately need keeping out of the White House.
there are only two possible outcomes of this election
And there’s the problem with all these responses in a nutshell. Shortsightedness.
Yes, there’s only two possible outcomes to this election, and yes Kamala is the better candidate by miles. But your voting actions don’t only affect this election, they affect all future elections. They’re the background against which all political strategy is determined.
If you just bend over every time you’re threatened with four years of some fuckwit in office, then you’ve committed to a political system where your opinion on policy ceases to be relevant. All that’s required for a complete autocracy is for one party to be a unbearable fascist and then the other party doesn’t even have to consider what the electorate actually think because they’re the not-fascists, and that’s all that’s needed.
And this isn’t even slippery-slope. It’s happening right now. The not-fascists are actually complicit in war crimes and are still getting your vote . How much worse will it be in four year’s time after they’ve had it proven to work? Why would they ever listen to the electorate on anything ever again?
Yes, there are just two outcomes. If Trump wins, the Democrats will again move to the right to occupy what passes for the centre ground in American politics. Kamala is one of the most pro worker candidates they’ve had in my lifetime. If they lose against the most incompetently bad president the country had in my lifetime with the most left candidate they’ve had in decades, they will pivot back to the “centre”.
So if they loose because leftists don’t like their policies enough to vote for them, they’ll pivot right? What would be the logic behind such a decision?
There’s thousands of leftist votes available, all they have to do to access them is produce a more left-wing agenda (like, say, not being complicit in war crimes).
But you’re suggesting in response to this loss (as a result of not denouncing war crimes) they’ll not, you know, denounce war crimes next time, but rather shift even more into the ground that’s in direct competition with their only opponent and try to win die hard Republicans who’d vote a Big Mac into government if it wore a MAGA cap?
Can you explain what you think their rationale would be for such a move?
They’ll lose because some fatally online “leftists” can’t bring themselves to vote democrat no matter how bad the alternative is and they’ll pivot right because they have some hope of winning over centrists, and the right wing politicians are the ones who are winning and the supposedly left wing ones get 1% of the popular vote and zero members into the electoral college. It’s America after all.
And that’s cool…
As long as when people want her to align more closely with the Dem voting base, you don’t yell at them for questioning the only option and imply they’re trying to help trump.
That bullshit only depresses Dem turnout and actually helps trump.
It’s just completely nonsensical to hear all the “moderates” claim they’d vote for anyone not trump, then go feral when someone points out banning fracking would hand the Dems Pennsylvania which trump needs to win the election.
There are multiple issues like that where if Kamala moved to the left she’d lock this election down.
If you truly only care about beating trump, your time online would be more productive trying to pull the party left than trying to pull tens of millions of voters to the right…
With the obvious benefit of getting those popular policies on top of beating trump.
If it’s not been posted already…
https://theintercept.com/2024/09/10/polls-arms-embargo-israel-weapons-gaza/
Banning sales of arms to Israel would not only attract a huge proportion of otherwise reluctant leftists, but might even steal votes from Trump as a small but not insignificant number of voters have been fooled by his ‘started no wars’ con. The idea that doing so would lose some key demographic is clearly not supported by the data.
But the Democratic strategists are not idiots. They must know this. So one of two things is the case; the polling is wrong, or the Democrats have absolutely no desire to move leftward on this and are willing to risk a Trump win to hold out on their position.
We can rule out the first because if the Democrats had better poll data they’d share it. Nothing to lose by doing so.
So we’re left with the second.
Odd then that the online vitriol is delivered not to the Democrats for cynically risking a Trump victory, but to leftists for being opposed to genocide.
They wouldn’t lose significant voters, theyd lose a bunch of donations…
It doesn’t cost a billion plus to beat donald trump, but the more money there is, the bigger everyone’s slice is and the bigger the bonuses for personally bringing more money is.
The DNC isn’t being run to get Dems in office, it’s a fucking grift where sometimes we do get a Dem in office.
Just never one who’s political policy matches Dem voters.
Look at current DNC leadership, it’s not people that know how to win elections, it’s just whoever can bring in the most donations.
The result is ridiculously expensive and incompetent campaigns. The solution is clearing house at the DNC.
…
True. And a cushy consulting job, or a few thousand in bonuses seems like an understandable inventive, if a misanthropic one.
But for those who do the footwork supporting such a system, I just cannot see why. What have the Democrats done to deserve such blind obedience? Is being not-Trump just that impressive these days?
They always move to the middle in every election chasing “independent” votes that they never get. I see no evidence from history that they “arent idiots”.
This is absolutely correct. I’m sure the 40% of voters who want to keep sending weapons to Israel aren’t even Harris voters. So clearly the Democratic party is only doing it for the love of genocide and it seems obvious that after they finish the genocide in Gaza and Lebanon they’ll shift their focus to genocide of Palestinians and other arabs living in America. This is completely unacceptable to me which is why I voted for Trump.
I thought about voting for a third party but I live in a swing state and want to minimize the chances of Koncentration Kamp Kamala from getting elected so I directly supported Trump rather than indirectly.
Sooooo… because you can’t be bothered to understand how things work. You voted for someone that suggests that Israel “finish the job.”
That sure showed those pesky libs!
You’re about as bad-faith as it gets. You’re MAGA, through and through. Drop the act that it has anything to do with genocide.
“Koncentration Kamp Kamala”
Listen to yourself. You’re beyond delusional. Seek help.
A lot of my relatives died in concentration camps. Why the hell are you trivializing them?
I could no more vote Trump ‘tactically’ than I could Harris. I think one ought vote according to one’s concience. The whole notion of tactical voting makes a mockery of democracy, if no one could be persuaded to vote tactically there’d be significantly less ‘electioneering’. More like the Nordic model, with way more parties catering to a broader range of political views.
You only have to look at the current Democrat campaign, they barely need a policy at all, they’re running almost entirely on being not-Trump.
Ignores all the policy announcements Kamala made, complains that there aren’t any policies.
But yes, actually, being not Trump is an excellent reason to vote for Kamala, because there are only two possible outcomes of this election, and one of them is a wannabe dictator, KKK-supporting, idiot putin stooge, racist, hate-filled, selfish, duplicitous, personally disloyal, insurrectionist, unamerican, country betraying, diaper-wearing emotional crybaby thrower of money at the already super-rich, and frankly I’m tired of people pretending that he doesn’t desperately need keeping out of the White House.
And there’s the problem with all these responses in a nutshell. Shortsightedness.
Yes, there’s only two possible outcomes to this election, and yes Kamala is the better candidate by miles. But your voting actions don’t only affect this election, they affect all future elections. They’re the background against which all political strategy is determined.
If you just bend over every time you’re threatened with four years of some fuckwit in office, then you’ve committed to a political system where your opinion on policy ceases to be relevant. All that’s required for a complete autocracy is for one party to be a unbearable fascist and then the other party doesn’t even have to consider what the electorate actually think because they’re the not-fascists, and that’s all that’s needed.
And this isn’t even slippery-slope. It’s happening right now. The not-fascists are actually complicit in war crimes and are still getting your vote . How much worse will it be in four year’s time after they’ve had it proven to work? Why would they ever listen to the electorate on anything ever again?
Yes, there are just two outcomes. If Trump wins, the Democrats will again move to the right to occupy what passes for the centre ground in American politics. Kamala is one of the most pro worker candidates they’ve had in my lifetime. If they lose against the most incompetently bad president the country had in my lifetime with the most left candidate they’ve had in decades, they will pivot back to the “centre”.
So if they loose because leftists don’t like their policies enough to vote for them, they’ll pivot right? What would be the logic behind such a decision?
There’s thousands of leftist votes available, all they have to do to access them is produce a more left-wing agenda (like, say, not being complicit in war crimes).
But you’re suggesting in response to this loss (as a result of not denouncing war crimes) they’ll not, you know, denounce war crimes next time, but rather shift even more into the ground that’s in direct competition with their only opponent and try to win die hard Republicans who’d vote a Big Mac into government if it wore a MAGA cap?
Can you explain what you think their rationale would be for such a move?
They’ll lose because some fatally online “leftists” can’t bring themselves to vote democrat no matter how bad the alternative is and they’ll pivot right because they have some hope of winning over centrists, and the right wing politicians are the ones who are winning and the supposedly left wing ones get 1% of the popular vote and zero members into the electoral college. It’s America after all.