Its funny how people act as if kamala lost because she supported genocide
No lol, leftists hold miniscule power in electorate, kamala lost because she ran a shitty campaign and neo liberal economics will only make things worse for incumbent.
I voted for Kamala, but I was pissed we didn’t have a fucking primary. If we had a primary, we might have gotten Bernie on the ballot, or Elizabeth Warren, or Butegig, or anyone else. But instead Biden claimed to be running, then dropped out at the last minute so opps no time for primaries. I’m salty as hell that democrats didn’t get a choice. It felt deliberate and coordinated.
America doesn’t have a left wing. America has a right wing and an extreme right wing. The closest to an actual leftist that America has is Mamdani, and America’s so-called left wing politicians tried their best to make him look evil.
Kamala lost because it was obvious from the beginning that she was a bad candidate whose only hope of becoming President was to be parachuted into the role via the 25th Amendment once Biden’s mental state truly deteriorated. Unfortunately for her and the DNC, Biden’s condition declined right as a key presidential debate rolled around, and his declining cognitive health became so utterly apparent that not even Reddit’s tyrannical cabal of power mods could cover it up anymore.
Before that debate, even merely suggesting that Biden was senile would have gotten you labelled a Nazi and banned from at least a dozen subreddits.
Nah he was just quiet senile instead of loud senile. I’ve had patients that are rather agreeable despite low cognitive function. They don’t wind up in the hospital as much and get discharged quicker because the agreeableness means they can accept home caregivers more safely, but they very much still need assistance with decision making. He wasn’t more coherent per se, just more able to cooperate with his handlers. Ignoring morality (a distressingly common occurrence throughout the history of humanity) is it preferable to have a leader who accepts control of the oligarchs more placidly or more chaotically? I don’t speak to my parents anymore for a variety of reasons (including politics) but one tiny spark of something they did get right was that trump is slightly harder to keep under control, and is accelerating the destruction of our broken political system, we just differed in opinion on whether the coming system is more likely to be better or worse.
she was a candidate for 100 days leading up to the election, against a former president that had been campaigning non stop for 6 8 years at the point she joined the race. She was fucked over and thrown under a bus.
She had good momentum at the start with the brat summer thing and calling conservatives weird and then, very suddenly, she threw it all in the trash and started running around with Liz Cheney. They saw her amping up the progressives and needed to put a stop to it and whether it was her idea or not she jumped in there with all her energy.
She could have won, she didn’t lose by much, but she desperately spent the last month or two making sure that everyone knew she would rather lean conservative than progressive.
I felt like she was a token black women as a VP, and not allowed to be any more than that. As much as the dems espouse equality its still a rich white man who is against universal healthcare running things.
neo libs must choose… either there is not enough progressives to demand a progressive candidate so they are not a large enough block to have changed the outcome OR they are large enough bloc to demand progressive cannidate and the democrats ignoring them cost them the election.
Funny, that works just as well in reverse: If “the left” is big enough that all the posturing about not voting for the lesser evil, and the moral purity BS caused Trump to win, they are responsible for untold horrors simply because they want to grand stand. If they aren’t big enough, they’re irrelevant anyway, so why would anyone care?
If the left is small, then it was rightly ignored, but can’t be blamed. If it’s large, then it could be blamed, had it not been ignored. What you can’t do is both ignore it and then blame it.
This isn’t feudalism, it’s not the job of the peasants to mollify the Lord, getting votes is a politician’s job. Blaming the electorate for your loss is an abrogation of responsibility.
And then they get mad when you call it out with documentation, even directly quoting their political idols and their own words about what they support.
They just want the fascism done quietly in blue color than loudly in red.
I’m happy to see more progressives running but as a recent example, Madami, the Dems would have rather he lost than win even if it meant electing Trump. They’re the ones that put themselves in this position, now us.
Its very hard to discern the real reason Harris lost in the election. Especially with interference the Right orchestrated with mail in voting and voting IDs, they tanked the left’s momentum while gassing Trump’s reelection with actual fraud. The results of numerous investigations was that if someone committed fraud or voted twice it was for a Republican candidate… but don’t worry isn’t not like Trump controlled the swing districts and threw away votes for Harris.
“Trump on Elon Musk: ‘He knows those computers better than anybody. All those computers. Those vote-counting computers. And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide.’”
Just another reminder: Read the SAVE Act and start getting together valid ID under it now, don’t wait to find out if it’s going to pass first. Valid ID has other uses too so it’s not a total waste if it doesn’t pass and gets you ahead of both the line and any GOP fuckery with trying to get ID if it does pass.
Especially if you are someone who has ever changed their name, as SAVE allows for some forms of voter ID that don’t verify citizenship, but those have to be paired with a birth record with a matching name, which doesn’t exist if you have ever changed your name (such as being a married woman, or many trans folks).
“No new wars” was a trump slogan, leftists aren’t the only ones against the genocide, pretty much everyone who doesn’t have ties with israel was pissed with US involvement.
The turnout was actually rather high by historical standards. A portion of the population not voting is just a constant of elections. You can’t blame your loss on something that happens every election. And worse, in recent elections, Democrats do WORSE when turnout is higher. If turnout were higher, Kamala would have lost even worse.
Pick pretty much any winning campaign on either side in something like the last half century. In context a “good campaign” doesn’t mean a campaign holding up to whatever your particular markers of moral purity are (which includes but certainly are not limited to “does not support Israel”), but rather a campaign that is effective at getting elected.
however, enough of the protest votes would have swung the election in her favor.
I have never seen a single piece of data to back up a claim like that. If you have, I’d love to see it
they didn’t all protest the vote. I would say most of them just didn’t vote because they couldn’t be bothered.
I would guess this is true, but this is a failure of the candidate, not the electorate. In a country without mandatory voting or a national holiday for elections, motivating your base is extremely important, especially when you base is working class people who are less likely to be able to take time off to vote. Even ignoring her centrist economic platform and genocide support, her strategy was explicitly to target disaffected Republicans instead of energizing her own base, and that strategy failed. Kamala and the incompetent consultants she surrounded herself with own this loss, and whining about the voters won’t change that.
Its funny how people act as if kamala lost because she supported genocide
No lol, leftists hold miniscule power in electorate, kamala lost because she ran a shitty campaign and neo liberal economics will only make things worse for incumbent.
Some factors for losing:
Her loss was a combination of many factors, including the support of genocidal Zionism. Do not ignore it.
I voted for Kamala, but I was pissed we didn’t have a fucking primary. If we had a primary, we might have gotten Bernie on the ballot, or Elizabeth Warren, or Butegig, or anyone else. But instead Biden claimed to be running, then dropped out at the last minute so opps no time for primaries. I’m salty as hell that democrats didn’t get a choice. It felt deliberate and coordinated.
America doesn’t have a left wing. America has a right wing and an extreme right wing. The closest to an actual leftist that America has is Mamdani, and America’s so-called left wing politicians tried their best to make him look evil.
Don’t forget Bernie and AOC.
Kamala lost because it was obvious from the beginning that she was a bad candidate whose only hope of becoming President was to be parachuted into the role via the 25th Amendment once Biden’s mental state truly deteriorated. Unfortunately for her and the DNC, Biden’s condition declined right as a key presidential debate rolled around, and his declining cognitive health became so utterly apparent that not even Reddit’s tyrannical cabal of power mods could cover it up anymore.
Before that debate, even merely suggesting that Biden was senile would have gotten you labelled a Nazi and banned from at least a dozen subreddits.
THAT is why she lost to a convicted felon.
Did you watch the debates between Biden and Trump. Biden was far more articulate and sane than trump, and it still wasn’t enough.
Both of them were clearly demented. Trump just making shit up and Biden interrupting him to mumble incoherently, ending in “We Beat Medicaid!”
Nah he was just quiet senile instead of loud senile. I’ve had patients that are rather agreeable despite low cognitive function. They don’t wind up in the hospital as much and get discharged quicker because the agreeableness means they can accept home caregivers more safely, but they very much still need assistance with decision making. He wasn’t more coherent per se, just more able to cooperate with his handlers. Ignoring morality (a distressingly common occurrence throughout the history of humanity) is it preferable to have a leader who accepts control of the oligarchs more placidly or more chaotically? I don’t speak to my parents anymore for a variety of reasons (including politics) but one tiny spark of something they did get right was that trump is slightly harder to keep under control, and is accelerating the destruction of our broken political system, we just differed in opinion on whether the coming system is more likely to be better or worse.
Sure, but republicans don’t care if their candidate is sane (obviously). Democrats do.
Also I don’t think voters appreciated having her shoved in at the last minute.
This. Democrats had no primary for presidential choice.
She lost because the average voter votes for whatever name they’ve heard before.
she was a candidate for 100 days leading up to the election, against a former president that had been campaigning non stop for
68 years at the point she joined the race. She was fucked over and thrown under a bus.She had good momentum at the start with the brat summer thing and calling conservatives weird and then, very suddenly, she threw it all in the trash and started running around with Liz Cheney. They saw her amping up the progressives and needed to put a stop to it and whether it was her idea or not she jumped in there with all her energy.
She could have won, she didn’t lose by much, but she desperately spent the last month or two making sure that everyone knew she would rather lean conservative than progressive.
I felt like she was a token black women as a VP, and not allowed to be any more than that. As much as the dems espouse equality its still a rich white man who is against universal healthcare running things.
neo libs must choose… either there is not enough progressives to demand a progressive candidate so they are not a large enough block to have changed the outcome OR they are large enough bloc to demand progressive cannidate and the democrats ignoring them cost them the election.
and they always pivot talking points
Funny, that works just as well in reverse: If “the left” is big enough that all the posturing about not voting for the lesser evil, and the moral purity BS caused Trump to win, they are responsible for untold horrors simply because they want to grand stand. If they aren’t big enough, they’re irrelevant anyway, so why would anyone care?
If the left is small, then it was rightly ignored, but can’t be blamed. If it’s large, then it could be blamed, had it not been ignored. What you can’t do is both ignore it and then blame it.
This isn’t feudalism, it’s not the job of the peasants to mollify the Lord, getting votes is a politician’s job. Blaming the electorate for your loss is an abrogation of responsibility.
Schrodinger’s Left: small enough for Dems to ignore, large enough to make Dems lose
The enemy is both strong and weak.
There’s a reason actual leftists refer to these losers as “social fascists”
Liberals vastly prefer fascism to actual justice.
And then they get mad when you call it out with documentation, even directly quoting their political idols and their own words about what they support.
They just want the fascism done quietly in blue color than loudly in red.
It’s almost like they’re fascist lite…
It’s almost like Democrats are 2016 Republicans, which were fascist light…
I’m happy to see more progressives running but as a recent example, Madami, the Dems would have rather he lost than win even if it meant electing Trump. They’re the ones that put themselves in this position, now us.
They spent millions to keep him out, they hate winning if it means the rich lose $100.
Pretty much!
They are addicted to the AIPAC tit
Its very hard to discern the real reason Harris lost in the election. Especially with interference the Right orchestrated with mail in voting and voting IDs, they tanked the left’s momentum while gassing Trump’s reelection with actual fraud. The results of numerous investigations was that if someone committed fraud or voted twice it was for a Republican candidate… but don’t worry isn’t not like Trump controlled the swing districts and threw away votes for Harris.
“Trump on Elon Musk: ‘He knows those computers better than anybody. All those computers. Those vote-counting computers. And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide.’”
Not totally convinced she lost.
Just another reminder: Read the SAVE Act and start getting together valid ID under it now, don’t wait to find out if it’s going to pass first. Valid ID has other uses too so it’s not a total waste if it doesn’t pass and gets you ahead of both the line and any GOP fuckery with trying to get ID if it does pass.
Especially if you are someone who has ever changed their name, as SAVE allows for some forms of voter ID that don’t verify citizenship, but those have to be paired with a birth record with a matching name, which doesn’t exist if you have ever changed your name (such as being a married woman, or many trans folks).
The Gaza issue seems to have been pretty big
https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-polling
“No new wars” was a trump slogan, leftists aren’t the only ones against the genocide, pretty much everyone who doesn’t have ties with israel was pissed with US involvement.
no, she lost because 1/3 of Americans failed to vote.
The turnout was actually rather high by historical standards. A portion of the population not voting is just a constant of elections. You can’t blame your loss on something that happens every election. And worse, in recent elections, Democrats do WORSE when turnout is higher. If turnout were higher, Kamala would have lost even worse.
I can easily blame lazy shitheads for doing nothing to stop fascism.
Watch me.
Which wouldn’t have happened if she ran a good campaign.
Show me a good campaign that accepts AIPAC money. I want to know what you think a capable genocide supporting Democrat looks like.
Pick pretty much any winning campaign on either side in something like the last half century. In context a “good campaign” doesn’t mean a campaign holding up to whatever your particular markers of moral purity are (which includes but certainly are not limited to “does not support Israel”), but rather a campaign that is effective at getting elected.
So Trump? Fetterman? Christ that’s cynical.
what makes you think that?
they didn’t all protest the vote. I would say most of them just didn’t vote because they couldn’t be bothered.
however, enough of the protest votes would have swung the election in her favor.
Had they not lost the forest through the trees, we’d have manageable problems right now.
edit: hate on me all you want, but you know I’m right.
I have never seen a single piece of data to back up a claim like that. If you have, I’d love to see it
I would guess this is true, but this is a failure of the candidate, not the electorate. In a country without mandatory voting or a national holiday for elections, motivating your base is extremely important, especially when you base is working class people who are less likely to be able to take time off to vote. Even ignoring her centrist economic platform and genocide support, her strategy was explicitly to target disaffected Republicans instead of energizing her own base, and that strategy failed. Kamala and the incompetent consultants she surrounded herself with own this loss, and whining about the voters won’t change that.
In other words, she lost because she was a Limousine Liberal.
Honestly, I’m not even sure that’s the right term for it. She was to the right of most centrist liberals on Gaza, immigration, and even guns.