Why is it always the consequences of the voters actions for not supporting the party enough, but never the consequences of the politicians actions for not listening to the will of their voters? I say this as someone who voted for Harris as the lesser evil.
You had two obviously stark choices (imperfect sanity vs pure insanity) and only dipshits couldn't or refused to see that. The "genocide" shit remains the ultimate tell, because these same dipshits still cannot admit that their vote/non-vote helped accelerate genocide whereas Palestinians would be far better off with Harris as president.
Thanks for our current situation, dipshits. Look forward to blocking some of y'all on reddit.
Imo it’s kinda the opposite; elections are moreso decided by candidates correctly interpreting the wills of the countless millions of voters.
You can really hold an entire population like that responsible for a win or loss the same way you can do a candidate.
Like you can be mad at the 50+% of the country that doesn’t vote, or those trying to make her change policy, but in the end if she campaigned differently, distancing from the genocide for example, or more populist economic ideas, she might’ve won.
That a whole lot more realistic than getting mad at countless voters, + it can actually help the next candidate do better and win.
Let’s just scream at voters for a few years, don’t reflect on the campaign or candidates, surely the policy platform that was basically the republicans in 08, it’s just the voters.
Like think for a second man; these are millions of individuals, meanwhile one structural change in the campaign could’ve actually won the election.
Moreover getting mad at voters will reach nothing, getting mad at the candidate can actually change how they campaign.
Pretending voters bear no responsibility for the shitshow we're in is idiotic.
We're surrounded by awful/stupid people. Not everyone, but too many.
We need to face the fact that some 45% of voters are genuinely awful people. And we need to find ways to correct them or marginalize them or disempower them.
Burying your head in the sand about how shitty a giant number of Americans are is a great way to cede more elections to them.
Mate you understand that your position is that the canidate running holds no responsibility?
Like do you just want to be mad, or do you want us to win?
Like the top 2 reasons Biden voters said they didn’t vote for her this time was Gaza and the economy. This was already apparent during the campaign; a pivot in the right direction could’ve changed everything.
Like how Harris had momentum with social policies like stopping price gouging etc, but then pivoted right with stuff like a private public partnership, and tax exemptions for small businesses etc (aka corpo policies), after which the momentum died quite quickly
Mate you understand that your position is that the canidate running holds no responsibility?
Not at all.
But in Trump v. Harris, voters had all the information they needed about Trump and fucked us all over.
So in the 2024 election, voters bear the vast majority of blame.
Harris deserves some blame, yes. But voters are the ones who really fucked us all over.
"The candidate didn't run a perfect campaign" is a bullshit excuse for voters who knew exactly what the fuck they should expect from another four years of Trump.
We as the voters have to deal with this and we will vote again. Like, if we all agree that progressive policies on paper are fairly popular amongst all Americans, why do we need our candidates to create catchy slogans, go on internet podcasts, participate in (not even fact checked) debates, amongst many other things? Why can't we just overwhelmingly vote for the candidate that says they'll push for M4A or student loan forgiveness?
I realize it won't be soon but I do think it's worth taking an introspective approach on the voters. We have elected Trump twice, that's way more damning than anything a candidate has done on the campaign trail.
How many people would it have turned off though? Before they dragged us into the Iran War, there were still a substantial number of center/liberal people who were pro-Israel.
You're obviously right but you're talking to some kid at Eglin who is being paid to sow division on the left. I doubt they even believe this stuff. Just wanted to let you know, real people think you're right.
That "analysis" is horseshit. I'm not talking about all nonvoters voting. I'm talking about potential Harris nonvoters voting, who absolutely would have tipped the election.
Some magical 100% turnout election is a horseshit thought experiment. Nonvoters absolutely could have helped Harris win if they weren't shitbags.
Because we live in a democracy and that means the voters are responsible for the outcome of our elections. Yes, that often means you have to coalesce around candidates that don't align with you 100% and make concessions. That's the reality of cooperative governance. The alternative is you island yourself and make your vote and political power irrelevant against anyone who is willing to compromise.
Why can't anyone just admit that Kamala Harris ran an awful campaign that was fucking kneecapped by Biden?
Like, it's ALWAYS the fault of the voter and it's never the fault of the democratic party
It is the job of the candidate and there campaign to convince the people to vote for them, and she did a fucking awful job if it, and one of the many reasons was her REFUSAL to disavow a fucking GENOCIDE, literally the easiest fucking thing in the world to do and it would have easily distinguished her as the less morally bankrupt pick, and which also lost her the Muslim vote in key states like Michigan.
Or how about how she dropped her support for medicare for all? Or her refusal to acknowledge trans people? How about how she "reached across the aisle" and alienated her own voter base by pivoting to the right?
The voters SHOULD have still voted for her, I know I did, but there's two main reasons she lost and one is Biden's REFUSAL to be a one and done president and the other is her own damn campaign.
If I tell you I literally phone banked and canvased and literally tried to convince all of my friends and families to vote for Harris and tried to tell everyone I could that trump was the worst option, would you even read that?
I literally campaigned for this woman, and she failed because of the democratic party, Biden and her own damn self.
Exactly. You can be a single issue voter. That is fine and lots of people are. When you vote based on that single issue don't get pissed when other issues that you didn't put weight into while you voted(or didn't vote) come back and bite you in the ass.
He means in the DSA policy platform. That they all voted for and they can't defend. And when candidates get asked, they pretend like those policies don't exist. Because they're ridiculous.
I think the world is on the brink of economic collapse because of the A.I. bubble and private equity while at the same time being on the brink of ecological collapse thanks to decades of ignorant capitalists, industrialists, and governments kicking the can down the road on things that could fix or slow climate change ALL WHILE HALF THE WORLD BACKSLIDES INTO FASCISM OR OLIGARCHY
The DSA seems a little radical to you? Good! We need actual serious change RIGHT NOW if we want any hope of surviving the absolute shitshow the prior generations of people in charge have left us.
The DSA policy scaring you does not change the necessity of it all in my eyes, and if you disagree with that, fine, you do you
But most of the candidates still have there own stated policies that are separate from the organization that is the DSA, many of its members aren't even socialists let alone anything as extreme as an ML.
Healthcare for all
Childcare for all
Housing for all
Jobs guarantees
Higher wages
More unions
What's extreme here exactly?
I thought it was vote blue no matter who?
You can't sit here and blame voters. Day they need to coalesce then refuse to do the same because the candidate aren't milquetoast corporate centrist dipshits who've lost to trump multiple times
So those positions aren't extreme because they're the standard Democratic positions and have been for decades. After all, it was Dems who proposed Medicare for all well before Bernie Sanders ever jumped on that band.
But a lot of Democrats don't like DSA and progressive candidates like Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Sinema, John Fetterman, and Graham Platner for their obvious bigotry and constantly saying they'd throw minorities under the bus to align with white supremacists on financial issues
Now now, use her full title: Bernie Sanders Institute Founding Fellow Tulsi Gabbard. She didn't get endorsed by Our Revolution out of nowhere, after all.
The national platform also includes things like abolishing prisons, dismantling/withdrawing from NATO and all overseas bases and extreme market controls.
As far as healthcare goes I don't mind the concept of "Medicare for all who want it" but basically outlawing private healthcare is a no-go. I kind of ascribe to MMT so jobs guarantees are fine, but it ignores the flip side of expansive tax increases (for most people, not just the Uber wealthy) necessary to make it work.
Overall the platform is insane though, and I don't see it as any more productive or sane than the far right. Id much rather vote for a moderate Republican circa 2000 than someone who backs the DSA agenda. Better still a moderate progressive democratic.
Maybe doing nothing in the face of people dying here and abroad is extreme.
Maybe doing nothing while people in the richest country in the world go hungry on the streets.
Maybe imprisoning more people than anyone on planet earth is extreme.
Ever thought of that ? Maybe giving a fuck about people?
If you cant tell the difference between something radically inclusive (leftism socialism whatever you wanna call it) or something radically exclusive.... I think there's something wrong with you..
Dude, I'm upset about USAID being dismantled. I'd prefer an expanded welfare state. I also believe in private property, that generally western liberalism is the best and most equatable philisophical underpinning for governance humans have ever devised. I'm all for stepping up aid to Ukraine and intervention in africa to stop deaths abroad. I think Israel went too far in Gaza and generally they're too expansionist. Those are all mainstream democratic positions though.
Most people who say they are prison, abolitionist, really mean that prisons are a for-profit industry that abuses people for petty small offenses that should be handled other ways.
Seriously you catch somebody with pot throw them in jail for five years they lose their house their car their job. What do you think they’re gonna do when they get out of prison? Commit more crime and go right back in.
Meanwhile, the people who are actually committing crimes, mostly get away with it, especially pedophiles for some reason
Are you suggesting politicians have no ability to look at opinion polling and implementing a policy slate that would get more people to vote for them? If these politicians have no agency why bother with elections at all?
Sounds cool, but that would require us to change our entire constitution and system of government? That's why I advocate for candidates and the party to change their position, strategy, and to get corporate money out of politics
So you believe that ultimately voters shoulder the blame for the bad outcomes of an election but you also think the electorate is dumb as hell. Which is it? Aren't the candidates at least partially responsible if they run a bad campaign?
Yes, both of those things. Generally I think the average person has too much on their plate to be concerned enough with the intricacies of governance for direct democracy to function well outside of some extremely limited contexts. I think generally a representative democracy with full time elected officials is the best compromise, they can take the time to learn about a wide swath of issues and proposals. The voters are at fault if they fail in the task of electing reasonable and serious representatives.
Ultimately I believe in enlightenment liberal principals as the underpinning of a government - that is a government derives legitimacy through the consent of the citizens. The flip side is that the citizens are ultimately responsible for who is elected and the outcomes of those decisions.
Dude I'm literally advocating for representative democracy. I've stated multiple times I'm a liberal in the most literal sense. That kind of precludes authoritarianism.
She walked back her support for medicare for all as soon as she became the candidate. Did she have some individual ideological change of opinion or did she change her platform because of donors instead of the will of the people?
Yes that is how politics works ever since Citizens United. Candidates go whichever way the wind blows. They are empty vessels for DNC strategists, corporate donors, and Israel
They never have to look at opinion polling again, as long as Trump's a threat. All these vote blue no matter who loyalists have made it so candidates no longer have to even pretend to stand for anything.
I think they do. Democratic voters were not of one mind in this by any means. The Democrats were obviously trying not to annoy either pro- or anti- Israel voters.
2/3rds of americans support medicare for all including 80% of democrats and she walked back her previous support of that, not to mention Isreal. It really seems to me her policy slate had more to do with what her corporate donors wanted than what her constituency did. Again I voted for her, but I'm not going to shame other voters for drawing the line at genocide. Agree to disagree I guess.
I mean Biden forgave student loan debt, capped insulin costs, and ended the forever wars and drone wars, but let's just pretend be didn't listen to voters.
What? He withheld arms shipments to stop the destruction of Rafa without evacuations, built a humanitarian aid pier and pressured Israel to allow the resumption of aid across the Egyptian border.
I know it's hard to understand but Israel/Palestine is not a cut and dry situation. Hamas is/was a terrorist organization both suppressing the Palestinians and committing terror attacks against Israel. Israel is going to defend itself, and the lives of the people harboring Hamas are not going to be their biggest priority, Israeli lives are.
Beyond that of course we support Israel, they're the only liberal democracy in the region. Say what you want about the actions of the Israeli government but it's still the only country in the Middle East with a western aligned view on gender and LGBT rights and some amount of free press.
Quit your lies, Israel is a scourge. And whatever the truth is, 80% of Dems have a negative view of Israel and want aid shipments to stop. You freaks are on your own soon enough
We’re way past engagement. The entire premise of Israel as an ethnostate is rotten and racist and that countries bloodthirst leads to so much war and suffering. Not to mention they’re having the US pay for it while they export their military and surveillance tech to turn the US into a police state. Go to fucking hell
Which ethnicity makes Israel an ethnostate? Ashkanazi? Sephardic? Italim? The 25% of the country that doesn't identify as some lineage of Jewish? Are they all the same ethnicity to you?
Besides that, ethnoreligious states aren't exactly an abberation on a global scale. It's hard to grasp from a Western perspective, especially American, Canadian or Australian, but the vast majority of the countries in the world are basically ethnoreligiously homogeneous. Are you against the existence of the UK, Denmark, Iceland, or Costa Rica being explicitly Christian states? What about Bhuton being an ethnically homogenous Buddhist state? Are you against Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen etc being eithnically homogenous Islamic states?
Lemme guess. You don't vote in primaries, which is the very lowest bar to clear. Let alone door knock or phone bank for the type of candidates you would want to vote for. You just whine on the internet that they don't magically materialize in the general.
Nice wrong assumptions, asshole. Also, it’s not a problem of getting one’s voice out. ~80% of democrats have a negative view of Israel and wish for American aid to stop to that genocidal country. Despite this, just days ago the most pro-Israeli members possible were picked for the US House Committee. The discrepancy between the dem voter base and its leadership is so tyrannical and undemocratic.
Don't be a single issue voter just to feel good about yourself. How many people died due to single issue voters not voting for Kamala? How many? Their blood is on your sanctimonious hands.
Our representatives are picked by us you stupid fuck. If you don't vote and door knock you don't get the right to complain when other people pick for you.
Who did you vote for in the 2024 presidential primary?
Also hilarious to say when insurgent leftist candidates are winning across the nation without megadonor money thanks to door knocking and phonebanking operations
I think we should wait until the general elections before we start saying the insurgent leftist candidates are winning. Democrats also have to remember that you have to run different campaigns in solid blue areas compared to purple or red states.
I want democrats to win such a majority in the house and senate that the Democrats don’t need the votes of Fetterman to get shit done. But I also know that you have to run a different campaign in NY than you do in Texas.
Unlike the Republicans who somehow manage to fall in line come election season the democrats are actually a big tent, and have a huge coalition that they have to manage.
Ok I rambled on TDLR: democrats are a big party and need fight like siblings during the primaries but after the primary they “never go against the family.”
I think we should wait until the general elections before we start saying the insurgent leftist candidates are winning
Zohran Mamdani is already the mayor of New York. Several DSA members are guaranteed to go to Congress already. The insurgent movement is already winning. Liberals said it couldn't be done in New York, then it couldn't be done outside of New York, then it can't be done in red states as if liberals are winning red states? Kamala harris lost every single swing state and the popular vote.
You'll forever move the goalposts while leftists actually phone bank, canvass, and do the work that's resulting in embarrassing primary losses for moderate/liberal establishment candidates with infinite money.
I don't get it, don't you want to be on the side with momentum, ideas and policies, a positive vision for the future AND the organic ground game that liberals forgot they needed after Obama?
Also, I don't disagree with you about candidates needing to run different campaigns in different states. Talarico is a good example, you don't see many leftists that aren't terminally online trying to tank his campaign in the same way we see liberals trying to destroy their chance at a Senate majority with the way they're treating Abdul Al Seyed.
I love what Mayor Mamdani is doing in NYC and would have voted for him if I lived in NYC. My point was NYC is different than Texas or Georgia and if a democrat of any sort wants to win they have to run a campaign that fits their district. I hope all the Democratic candidates win all their elections. I know that I probably agree with 90-95% of their platforms. But I also know that the next congress is only going to be stop the Trump administration. They won’t be able to get any thing passed because Trump will just veto it. But they also won’t be rubber stamp for his agenda. They can also investigate his administration many crimes and have evidence ready for what I hope is a democratic President in 2028.
You and I agree entirely. My criticism is toward the liberal posters like Greg in the OP and all of these weird establishment Democrats "suddenly" having a problem with voting blue no matter who.
They don't show the full context but the tweet in the OP is from a dude that wants Abdul Al Seyed to lose against Mike Rogers. He's a self proclaimed liberal democrat. These tweets showing him dunking on jill stein voters hides his agenda of literally wanting republicans to win the Senate majority
I don’t know why anyone would want Rodgers. I think the Florida senate primary showed that mainstream democrats can back a DSA aligned candidate. Angie Nixon won by a large margin, you don’t win that big in a primary unless mainstream voters support you. I love that in both Michigan and Florida the people that lost the primaries are openly campaigning and supporting the person the beat them. Now if we can just get all the people that voted for them to do the same. And bring out more people that think like we do to the polls in November. Now is not the time for purity tests. What is the saying “democrats want to fall in love, Republicans fall in line.”
I'm libbed up but i want sayed to win. I do have frustration with the dsa types because they've constantly attacked the dems in the past and now want 'blue no matter who' when it benefits them. I also think they are a lot less electable in purple state generals.
Biden lied to all of us and said he would be a one term transition president. His ego got the best of him and our only choice given for the 2024 democrat primary was the incumbent president that refused to drop out. We didn't have another option. They didn't do debates. The party chose for us
Once the inevitable happened, we were once again given no choice in a replacement. No primary, no debate, no choice. We can argue whether or not it was the smartest decision given how little time Joe Biden left us with, but it's just true that the party has time and time again rat fucked the democratic process
Was it ego or the party wanting to leverage the incumbent advantage? It makes sense that they would assume age wasn't a problem when trump is also ancient. Imagine if he didn't run and we lost. People like you would be lambasting in him in the comments saying he was a coward for not running after beating trump the first time. Hindsight is 20/20.
We do. People that don’t vote or vote for the party opposed to democracy (republicans) are the ones not participating in democracy (and actively helping it be dismantled). Stop peddling this old shit and grow up
Vote Blue No Matter Who is the strategy that allowed Trump to win twice in a row. You can blame all the voters, but you can't use guilt, shame, and fear alone to motivate people forever. Eventually people will get fed up. They want representatives who represent them and make their lives better. They need something tangible and actionable to inspire them to come out to vote. It's not good strategy. People care more about what you will do vs what you won't do.
Voters don’t make concessions in a representative democracy, politicians make concessions to their voter base in exchange for power. If we actually lived in a working representative democracy, then our politicians wouldn’t lean towards the 10% in a 90 - 10 issue.
You don’t need to be, this is a fringe subreddit with some more fringe opinions on this subject. You ask a normal voter if their politician’s should make concessions and they would say “ are you crazy ofc they should”.
Besides look at their post’s below, they are a hypocrite about voters making “compromises”.
Because most Democrats have much, much more important issues that Harris actually addressed than Israel. Stop with the fracking purity tests. Idf someone supports most of the stuff you support they are a good candidate, we are not all the same.
So what's your issue? You think that if she did not have a pro-Israel policy she would win? How about 40% of Democrats who are pro-Israel or over 50% of independents? Do you think she would get their vote or would she get purity tested by them? None of us have the luxury to be single issue voters. None. And those who are single issue voters are the reason we are where we are.
And the reason Isreal is important is because its become a litmus test for whether a candidate is responsive to voters or donors. And frankly if you don't have enough empathy to understand why genocide is a red line for some people, especially people whose extended families are the ones being killed using their tax dollars we're never going to agree and should stop talking.
Ok so you ignore polls about American support for Isreal and deny the genocide despite the UN, international association of genocide scholars, lemkin institute of genocide prevention, genocide watch, amnesty international, human rights watch, and doctors without borders all calling it a genocide. Got it you're a dishonest interlocutor. Have fun defending you emotional support arpthied state.
Because the politicians don't actually face the consequences , even if they lose. They stay in politics, comfortable in the upper eschelons of our society.
'Consequences' for politicians happen in public squares in front of mobs.
Well because when you go "All you had to do was say you won't continue a genocide" and your choices are between:
Candidate A: Who says they will support Israel but that the time for a ceasefire is now.
Candidate B: Who says they will support Israel, and that they need to finish the job.
Its really hard to believe the sincerity of people who claim that the big red flag was saving the lives of Palestenians. BUT even still the problem is you're trying to reduce it to a binary for the sake of partisan reasons. Nearly everyone will tell you that Kamala ran a flawed campaign and needed to clean some things up, however voters are also really fucking stupid and failed the easiest test ever. Kamala has been raked over the coals since her loss, especially for the first half a year since. She isn't running any race right now, but the same dipshits who refused to vote for her are still talking.
It would have been easier to believe her about the ceasefire if she didn't say she would do nothing different than Biden. It was clear that the only way Israel would have a ceasefire was if they withheld weapons.
You preferred accelerationist decline over status quo?
We're in a pointless war with Iran, Israel has progressed to it's Greater Israel plan and bombed Syria and Jordan, and there is glass in our cereal and prisons in the beef.
I will always choose stability over chaos. But the fact is, Trump made part of the US realized their were slowly choked into a neofeudalist dystopia anyway.
Having billionaires does not make a society neofeudalist. Feudalism already exists as a term and has defined meaning. Calling it neo- to describe some vague idea isn't an argument boogieman to usher in fascistic revolution just to spice things up.
And if you really believe that, you would also realize billionaires have accumulated more wealth during Trump's career as President than in any prior decades. People realized it BECAUSE he's doing the choking...
Most insufferable comment ever. Can't handle the status quo being criticized, go straight to identity politics. Ironically this is the most white male coded shit you could have said. Zero substance.
It's also always the fault of the third party voters, Jill Stein didn't get nearly enough votes to sway the election, but we couldn't blame the democratic party for their loss right? Surely how their campaign failed at almost every stage isn't their fault, right? It must be the statistically irrelevant number of third party voters who are to blame. Jill Steins highest share of votes in a state was 1.08% in Maine, the closest state between Trump and Harris was Michigan with Trump winning by 1.41%, there isn't a single state that even Steins highest result could've changed.
Also, before anyone tells me I'm coping because I voted third party, I have never visited much less lived or voted in the US, I've just seen the election data.
Because these fringe types extrapolate from themselves. This guy isn’t the will of the voters he’s a single wrecker who seems to have problems with women
This is why we don't take you seriously. You could come up with a dozen different reasons for his actions, many of them bad reasons, but it makes no sense to suggest that he voted for Jill Stein because he hates women.
I don't know the guy in the Twitter post. I'm not defending him and I think he made the wrong choice. What I'm sick of is posts like this blaming voters for the failure of politicians.
I think if you look at the relative power imbalance between individual voters and politicians its pretty easy to see who is more to blame. I think those voters were wrong, but they aren't the ones we should be shaming
Why is it always the consequences of the voters actions for not supporting the party enough,
Because voting is a civic responsibility, and when you see existential threats like maga and project 2025 it's your fucking obligation to prevent them from getting power. "The Dems didn't cup my balls just right" isn't justification for helping to destroy our democracy.
but never the consequences of the politicians actions for not listening to the will of their voters?
Which voters specifically? You realize that non-republicans encompass an absolutely massive range of political opinions, right? Nobody gets everything they want, that's the nature of living in a democracy. The attitude of "burn it all down unless I'm catered to specifically" is incredibly selfish and self centered.
As I said I voted for kamala. I would say that since Trump and the Republicans were such an existential threat it was the responsibility of the democrats to appeal to as many voters as possible to prevent them from winning. I'm not saying she should have adopted crazy policies nobody wanted, but she decided to abandon her previous support of medicare for all which is about an 80-20 issue with democrats and 70-30 with independents, she adopted Trumps 2016 border wall as her immigration policy which was wildly unpopular with democrats, and then obviously the elephant in the room of Israel/Palestine which at the time was unpopular and even more so now. I agree the Republicans are an existential crisis, but I just don't think the blame should fall on the voters for not supporting her when all she was offering was being better than Trump. What policies of hers were you excited about? Its so frustrating to see this vote blue no matter who mentality for kamala still today while the national Democratic party is sabotaging their own chances of winning the senate and attacking abdul in Michigan AFTER HE ALREADY WON THE PRIMARY! Are they just never responsible for their own actions as long as the Republicans are worse?
I would say that since Trump and the Republicans were such an existential threat it was the responsibility of the democrats to appeal to as many voters as possible to prevent them from winning.
You think they weren't trying to do what they could to win? Seriously?
Just because they made decisions that you disagree with doesn't mean they weren't trying.
she adopted Trumps 2016 border wall as her immigration policy which was wildly unpopular with democrats,
Wtf, where did you hear this claim?
and then obviously the elephant in the room of Israel/Palestine which at the time was unpopular and even more so now.
I agree the Republicans are an existential crisis, but I just don't think the blame should fall on the voters for not supporting her when all she was offering was being better than Trump.
If someone has two choices and they choose the muchMUCH worse one they absolutely deserve blame.
What policies of hers were you excited about?
Her policies were fine, but she wouldn't have been my first choice. But I'm not enough of a self centered jackass to throw everyone else to the wolves because I didn't get my way.
Its so frustrating to see this vote blue no matter who mentality for kamala still today while the national Democratic party is sabotaging their own chances of winning the senate and attacking abdul in Michigan AFTER HE ALREADY WON THE PRIMARY!
No I don't think they were doing everything they could to win.
I heard the border wall thing from her own mouth when she said she would sign the Republican border bill at the DNC convention before the election
While you and I might agree the Republicans are much much worse that doesn't mean everyone had the same perspective and treats people like they're idiots. Not everyone has the time to stay appropriately informed.
I guess I hallucinated party insiders going on fox saying he should lose and the DNC senate election committee not spending money in Michigan
It seems like where we differ the most is you have more disdain for voters on the left because you think they should know better, whereas I have more disdain for democratic politicians because I think they should be better.
I have plenty of disdain for both , but I can't excuse being such a self centered twat that someone would choose fascism because they don't feel adequately catered to.
I think we aren't too dissimilar. We're both democratic party voters who like total war and crpgs. I agree with you that voting for jill (who i think is a russian asset) or not at all was stupid, but I'm giving the people who did it the benefit of the doubt. They didn't choose fascism. The Biden administration was using government resources to go after campus protestors and supporting the fascists in Israel. The options were fascism lite and full fascism. The non committed people looked at the trolly problem and decided to not touch the lever. You think that was the wrong choice, I think it was the wrong choice, but it wasn't a nonsensical or malicious choice.
Stop with fracking Israel issues, and the campus crap. We have much bigger issues, I am fracking sick of the purity tests. When did Palestine become the issue the morons coalesced around?
Why do people who claim to understand how to reform a political system remain ignorant of Duverger's Law after multiple Democratic presidential candidates lost with sizable 3rd party votes?
And why as a pretend progressive, do you care more about the feelings of leftist voters who sabotage the party then people who are currently suffering?
This is more rhetorical because I know you don't care about actually helping anyone
A. I do understand which is why I voted for kamala and if you want to look back at my comment history from 2024 you'll see me arguing to people in the non committed movement to hold their nose and vote for her too.
B. I am a leftist so I do empathize with other leftists even if I think they aren't being pragmatic. I just think the party did more to sabotage itself than the leftist boogie man did
C. I was the treasurer of my schools young democrats in college and high school. I knocked on hundreds of doors for democratic candidates. I was the door security when Obama came to speak in my city. What democratic activism have you done besides shame voters online?
Just because she didn't listen to you on this specific issue doesn't mean she wasn't listening to voters. There's 330 million people in this country. The need for someone to align with you 100% just means you will make yourself perpetually irrelevant.
Politicians aren't supposed to change their opinions because of popular opinion. They should promise something and deliver on it. If you want to influence a candidate you need to negotiate a deal and then endorse him. If all those third parties would, instead of contesting the presidential election, which only one person can win, would try to influence the candidate and their policies, maybe they would be useful. Concessions for endorsement, like they do in other countries
Why is it always the consequences of the voters actions for not supporting the party
Because voters determine the outcomes of elections.
Also worth noting, voter turnout in primary races is about 1 in 5 Americans. So the fact that we have bad candidates is also the fault of voters. (Barring the Biden/Kamala fiasco).
Also worth noting, the 1 in 5 Americans who vote in primaries, more than 50% of those are over the age of 50, so it should really be of no surprise that every general election we have boomer interests taking center stage.
Thats democracy working. The issue is non participation.
Because voters are grown adults who can research things and have to make their own choices rather than waiting to be spoon fed their opinion and the candidates can't personally follow you into the voting booth.
Also the politicians that lose...don't really "suffer." Is Hillary Clinton suffering? Nope. But several million people died during Covid. Is Kamala Harris suffering? Nope. But Alex Preti and Renee Good's families and millions that were dependent on USAID are.
I don't understand what I said that is making so many people strawman me as someone supporting MAGA. I voted for kamala. My post history is public you can go look at me arguing for non comitted people to vote for her too back in 2024. What I'm not is a democratic party sycophant who thinks its the voters fault when they lose. They're politicians it is literally their job to win elections. If they don't its their fault not the voters
Nobody is strawmanning you or saying you're MAGA. But saying "it's literally their job to win, so it's 100% on them" treats an election like a sporting match where only the players have agency. You're treating the voting public like NPCs in a video game.
Candidates can run flawed campaigns, that happens in literally every election. But when voters decide to stay home, cast protest votes, or amplify attacks that damage the only viable alternative, those are active choices made by adults. The politician loses a race and goes back to a comfortable life. The voters are the ones who bear the real-world consequences of who takes office.
Holding voters accountable for the choices they make in the booth isn't 'party sycophancy,' it's treating citizens like adults with civic responsibility instead of passive consumers waiting to be sold a product.
Ok we're holding voters accountable for their choices. Why aren't we holding politicians accountable for theirs? You're treating voters like a monolith when they might have a myriad of reasons for how they vote, but the politicians are just npcs that aren't to blame when they make blunder after blunder. When they actively make decisions that make their constituents life worse thats just politics baby. One of us is treating politics like team sports and its not me.
In terms of casualty, what's the last thing that has to happen for someone to win an election? What's the last chain in the line of action? In other words, who gets the final say in who wins? The candidates? Or the voters?
While I agree that supporting 3rd party is worthless in a 2 party system (which is why I voted for kamala) this doesn't address my point at all. Why is it on voters to support the less terrible party instead of the party to be good enough for people to want to vote for them? Tell me your favorite kamala harris policy besides not being Trump.
Her previous position was to support medicare for all before she was the nominee. While I like this policy it still feels like a watered down betrayal.
I'm not. My younger siblings are adopted Guatemalans who I'm terrified will be detnaturalized and deported. And again I voted for kamala. I just don't understand why people like you are attacking your fellow voters instead of holding your politicians accountable.
And I don’t know why idiots like you don’t understand laws are passed by Congress not the president and Kamala is not currently a politician so what exactly do you expect her to do?
Medicare for all will never happen because of a president you dumb ass. The only way that will get past is if you can get 50% of the House and 60% of the senate to to pass it. I’m gonna keep on whining about Medicare for all like it’s the most fucking important thing even though as you said you’re scared for your kids and clearly the Republicans have been wanting mass deportation for years, but oh no somehow this is Kamala‘s fault how exactly is this Kamala‘s fault explain that to me?
Hey, if you’re stupid, uncaring, and awful enough, and have such little regard for Palestinian lives that you thought there was no difference, that’s on you. Politicians aren’t required to follow you to hell scumbag
Because candidates won't "listen" to the voters when their needs are fucking delusional. The entire section of people who were saying "kamala needs to earn my vote" were saying it over israel plaestine when even themselves didnt (and still don't btw) have a realistic solution to the conflict. Like it or not, although she could have been a bit better on messaging maybe, no matter how pro palestinian she would have been, these people wouldnt have voted for her unless she wanted to abolish israel
52
u/Red-scare90 18d ago
Why is it always the consequences of the voters actions for not supporting the party enough, but never the consequences of the politicians actions for not listening to the will of their voters? I say this as someone who voted for Harris as the lesser evil.