In her new book, Kamala Harris insists she only lost the election because she didn’t have enough time. But she accidentally demonstrates the real reason: she’s a terrible politician.
There are plenty of reasons for people to decide to not vote in the election.
Ever since 2016, the Democrats seem to have run mostly on a plattform of keeping the status quo, Obama ran on “Change”, and managed to change healthcare for the masses with Obamacare. What was the main point in the Democrat campaign in the last election, to an outsider, the answer seems to be “we are not Trump”, which while true, is not interesting or engaging.
Kamalas stance on Israel/Gaza, this is a stupid reason not to vote, but an important point, it also ties in with the previous point of that the Democrats didn’t seem to have any idea of what direction they would go if they were elected, other than “steady as she goes”.
Had the Democrats found and picked a course with a clear message to of what they were going to do when they won, and dropped the “steady as she goes” attitude, they may have won.
Maybe how you approach politics is harmful and supports rightwing movements.
I feel like “vote for the prevention of the accession of fascists” should resonate with more people than “let the fascists win to teach the DNC a lesson” did.
Democrats are right-wing, liberalism is right wing. If we overlaid the political scale from 1980 and today, Democrats would be to the far right of Reagan.
a political moderate who supports democrats not right wingers.
Oh! Like how Chuck Schumer makes is able to make the claim of being a political moderate! While dogwalking Democrats to break with the party to protect the filibuster.
Of course. This is soooooo supportive of Democratic policy positions.
Ahh yes. This tired, losing canard.
America will vote for immigrants. It will vote for women. It will vote for black people. It will vote to defend trans people.
It doesn’t want to vote for apologists to corporatism.
Its very clear.
It’ll also vote for Trump who is King Capitalism.
What alternative did you provide them?
You do understand that your approach to rhetoric is fundamental to why Democrats lost and Trump won?
I’ve told you before that the reason Trump won is because people voted for him and others decided not to vote.
That is the technical reason.
There are plenty of reasons for people to decide to not vote in the election.
Had the Democrats found and picked a course with a clear message to of what they were going to do when they won, and dropped the “steady as she goes” attitude, they may have won.
And why is that?
Because they didn’t give a shit if Trump won and did everything he said he would do.
As he is doing now.
Or, and this might be completely revolutionary towards your thinking…
Maybe how you approach politics is harmful and supports rightwing movements.
I feel like “vote for the prevention of the accession of fascists” should resonate with more people than “let the fascists win to teach the DNC a lesson” did.
But what you feel doesn’t matter, because we took the data on this, and the exact approach you outline led directly to fascists getting elected.
I’ve made it pretty clear I’m a political moderate who supports democrats not right wingers.
Democrats are right-wing, liberalism is right wing. If we overlaid the political scale from 1980 and today, Democrats would be to the far right of Reagan.
Oh! Like how Chuck Schumer makes is able to make the claim of being a political moderate! While dogwalking Democrats to break with the party to protect the filibuster.
Of course. This is soooooo supportive of Democratic policy positions.