this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
45 points (92.5% liked)

Political Discussion and Commentary

230 readers
20 users here now

A place to discuss politics and offer political commentary. Self posts are preferred, but links to current events and news are allowed. Opinion pieces are welcome on a case by case basis, and discussion of and disagreement about issues is encouraged!

The intent is for this community to be an area for open & respectful discussion on current political issues, news & events, and that means we all have a responsibility to be open, honest, and sincere. We place as much emphasis on good content as good behavior, but the latter is more important if we want to ensure this community remains healthy and vibrant.

Content Rules:

  1. Self posts preferred.
  2. Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
  3. No spam or self promotion.
  4. Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.

Commentary Rules

  1. Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
  2. Stay on topic.
  3. Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
  4. Provide credible sources whenever possible.
  5. Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
  6. Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
  7. Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).

Please try to up/downvote based on contribution to discussion, not on whether you agree or disagree with the commenter.

Partnered Communities:

Politics

Science

founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Man... don't take this language personally. It's just the only way I know how to speak right now.

In what fucking world do you think a more progressive candidate would've turned Michigan and Pennsylvania blue?

Christ. I hope I'm fucking wrong. Because I do believe in a more progressive agenda. And I'm in Michigan. But this takeaway is absolutely fucking nuts to me.

The last thing we need is for the hardcore blue states to be even bluer while the battleground states are all red.

I don't know, man. Explain your math to me. Because I can't wrap my head around it. But I haven't slept in like 36 hours, either, so maybe it's just me.

[–] Steve@communick.news 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I didn't say progressive. Progressive is a very broad term that can apply to all sorts of things.

I said economic-populist. One of the few things nearly all of us agree on in this country, is that the corporations and the ownership class have too much power in politics, and they're getting that power by stealing money from the working class. Trump was good at speaking to that, without actually doing much to help. The Democrats did some to help. But not enough, and they didn't want to sell it much for fear of scaring off the ownership/donor class.

Leave behind all the racial, sexual, social justice progressive stuff. It's divisive and won't help you win. Helping the poor generally, will disproportionately help those people more anyway. Just without putting them in the spot light.

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 weeks ago

Totally fair, man. Thanks for clarifying. Sounds like a totally reasonable take.

[–] caoimhinr@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Trump was good at speaking to that

I don't understand this, he campaigned with Musk, flaunted the idea of offering him a cabinet position and Musk stated the people would suffer under his policies. That's about as pro corporate as it gets.

[–] Steve@communick.news 1 points 2 weeks ago

You're still not internalizing or groking that everything he says is some kind of lie, and can't be taken literally.

[–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Harris lost Michigan by fewer votes than the number of people who voted “uncommitted” in the primary.

I don’t think the lesson here is to be more moderate or more conservative.

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You know, uncommitted doesn't really bother me. Had I bothered voting in the primary, I'd probably have voted uncommitted, too. Because I'm not really happy about the administration's handling of the Israel-Gaza situation.

But I damn sure voted for Kamala yesterday. I hope the Jill Stein voters feel really fucking smug about teaching Democrats a lesson when Trump tells Netanyahu to just push all the Muslims into the fucking ocean, and sells them the bulldozers to do it. I hope they all fucking cheer when they watch it livestreamed, Xclusively on X.

Because I assume that's what they wanted out of this election, and by gum, they fucking got it.

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago

I wonder if democrats feel good about supporting (leadership) or excusing (voters) genocide because they thought they had to to win, but lost anyway.

[–] Steve@communick.news 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

That was entirely about Israel and Gaza. The Democrats refused to distance themselves from the Republicans on that. Both sides were all in on the genocide. So yah people who felt it was the number one issue, had little reason to vote for Democrats over Republicans.

[–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Little reason to vote Democrat over Republican?

Donald Trump said he wants Israel to “finish the job.” The Democrats at least were making overtures to peace. Were sending aid to Gaza.

Kamala was walking a tightrope. She was losing voters to Trump who didn’t think she was pro-Israel enough, and others to Stein who didn’t think she was anti-Israel enough.

Strategic voting is important in a first-past-the-post system, and those who rejected Kamala because she wasn’t sufficiently anti-genocide for them get to sit in the knowledge that they helped her lose, and helped put a man who will absolutely make the genocide worse in power.

Edit: But yes, my point was she probably could’ve gotten some of those voters if she’d been more anti-genocide.

[–] Steve@communick.news 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Donald Trump said he wants Israel to “finish the job.” The Democrats at least were making overtures to peace.

Do you want 10 pounds of shit or 11? Who cares?

The pro-Israel crowd were already mostly evangelicals, all in on Trump from the get go.
Nobody would have voted for Stein if Harris took her Gaza rhetoric.

[–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

I agree that she should’ve been pro-Gaza. I just also understand why she wasn’t.

It was calculated and cowardly, words that define the modern Democratic Party.

[–] pressanykeynow@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

How many votes Harris got in the primary though?

[–] Kroxx@lemm.ee 4 points 2 weeks ago

I mean they went centrist this time and honestly got utterly creamed, I honestly can't believe how not close this was.

So if shifting to the right isn't working at all now what makes you think it's a winning strategy