this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
742 points (80.9% liked)
Political Memes
5611 readers
877 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Harris ran a perfect campaign. If she was running as a (pre-Trump) republican. However, we know that:
It's Harris and the Democrats. Should people have voted? Yes. Is it understandable why people didn't want to vote for the person telling them that she'll be a good republican and support a genocide? Also yes.
I didn't realize a wealth tax, 25k credit for first time home buyers, support for legalized cannabis, support for trans people, etc were Republican policies.
Are there more things on my progressive checklist? Yes, definitely. Universal healthcare, for one.
Part of being an adult is not being able to get everything you want when you want it.
Part of politics in the US is understanding that some of those things that Harris supported which resulted in a candidate that was not far left enough to get progressives off the couch, are too far left for other voters.
I don't envy whoever is picking up the pieces at the DNC and trying to determine what the precise amount of leftism is that will get those 10-15 million leftists off the couch without alienating the 60-70 million that did show up.
This is especially true for the Palestine issue. How many of those 10-15 million watching from the sidelines would have shown up for a pro-Palestine candidate? Even if it was 10 million, there would still have been more who would sit this one out or vote Trump, because they'd believe the bullshit that the Palestinians are all terrorists. I truly wish it wasn't the case, but I fear the post-911 Islamophobia and the imperialist attitudes about support for Israel would have cost a pro-Palestine candidate more votes than they would have gained.
Did she actually campaign on this, or was it just some white paper she had on her website? There's a difference between having a policy that you are campaigning on and actually intend to carry out and some vague policy paper a staffer wrote.
You cannot run on something that is one of your severe policy failures. Democrats have been running on the cannabis issue for multiple cycles at this point. They've all dragged their feet and slow-walked it for cheap political points.
She's objectively better on this than Trump, but trying to Third Way it, she screwed herself over. Democrats were vocally supportive of trans rights before any kind of major backlash emerged, but their support was only ever skin-deep. Trans issues were largely absent from the recent DNC.
The Republicans latched onto anti-trans bigotry as one of their major campaign planks, and the Democrats responded by just trying to ignore trans people entirely. They avoided discussing trans people whenever possible, and they never came up with effective responses to Republicans' main attack points. If you actually believe in trans rights, the correct response to the charge of "you want men in women sports!" is to say, "well trans women aren't men, and you shouldn't moronically assume trans women have the same athletic advantages as cis men." If you actually believe in trans rights and equality, you would say, "the differences between men and women sports performance is almost entirely due to testosterone. Any minor differences that remain are not worth discriminating against people over." Etc. You know, actually RESPONDING TO and REBUTTING the attacks Republicans make against trans people.
Centrist democrats showed conclusively that their support for trans people was nothing more than shallow political pandering. The Biden administration hasn't been using all the levers of federal power to protect trans kids from their state governments.
This kind of mealy-mouthed centrism is what cost Kamala the election. She isn't an enemy of trans people, but she's also not a real ally. She doesn't want to actively harm trans people, but she doesn't have some fundamental belief in the worth of trans rights. It's just another political football to her. It was beneficial to seem extremely pro-trans in 2020, and now that the conservatives have rallied against trans people, now she's not so eager to defend trans people. It seems disingenuous and it made her look like someone who would say anything just to win the election.
No one was expecting her to become a rabidly pro-Palestinian protester. No one expected her to get up at the podium and say, "actually, Hamas did nothing wrong, and the Israelis should be relocated out of Palestine." People wanted her to make US military aid contingent on Israel meeting human rights guidelines. Israel, despite all the precision weaponry we give them, has a worse civilian:military kill ratio than Hamas. They kill more civilians for every soldier they kill than radical terrorists. Despite all their high-tech weaponry, THAT is how unconcerned Israel has been about civilian casualties. Hamas has done a better job of avoiding civilian casualties than Israel.
Anyway, the polling showed that calling for a cease-fire and other measures would have been immensely popular. This was a completely unforced error on her part. She threw away votes for nothing.
I'm not saying that she didn't have any liberal centrist ideas like what you listed, but that doesn't mean she was progressive either. A lot of the policy ideas that were actually good were once on the Republican platform before Reagan.
Don't forget about how popular Bernie was in 2016 before he was forcibly removed from the democratic nomination by the party establishment or how popular Tlaib, AOC, and Omar have been. Don't forget about how down-ballot races in this cycle, while brutal to Democrats, didn't push out many progressives. Progressivism is far more popular than the democratic party is willing to admit or fight on, because the party is owned and controlled by the same class currently oppressing us; the billionaires. If a candidate like Bernie presents a real path, they will force the person out. It's not strictly an issue with the Overton window.
Here's the thing about the choice facing people in the election: it doesn't matter anymore as a matter of the current political reality, because Harris gambled hard on the "good cop, bad cop" aspect of "he's worse" and lost hard. That statement is 110% true, but it's horribly ineffective as we saw in 2016 and again in this election. Islamophobia will absolutely increase, and Trump will fund the genocide until all of Palestine is settled by colonists. But once again, don't forget about how successful Tlaib was in comparison to Harris. We no longer have the opportunity to find out if it would or wouldn't have affected the campaign, but the indication is there that at least 1 swing state would have gone to Harris with an anti-genocide stance.
You're only providing half of the argument. The other half of the argument is the fact that if you didn't support her, then you supported a fascist dictatorship.
And what happened? We got a fascist dictatorship!
Let's preface with the fact I voted for Harris, and understand where you're coming from with lesser evil voting.
But the other half of your argument is that with the way that Harris was tacking to the right to try to gain moderate voters, the choice was between voting between fascism now and fascism later down the line.
By sitting at home happy that you did your job and 'defeated' fascism, until the next election where your choice is again fascism now and fascism a little less later down the line?
As the Dems keep drifting further and further right. At what point do you put your foot down and demand actual progressive policies? And how do you get those demands to actually be listened to when the party knows you'll vote for them because "at least we're not as bad as the other guys. What choice do you have?" Supporting her is a message to the Democratic party that their strategy of slowly becoming more conservative wins elections. And this is the reason that I was very conflicted about voting for her, but just held my nose and did it for the greater good.
I think you're wrong about how the party sees non voters. When you don't vote, the party treats you like a non voter and moves their platform to the right to appeal to the voters. When you sit home in an election the party doesn't go "how do we get these votes of people that only vote when the stars align perfectly", they go, "how do we get these votes of people that always vote". Every far left person mad about the country moving right can blame themselves just as much as the party. People who consistently participate shape the future.
Source: I've worked for the Democratic party and have a pretty good idea how they interpret voter turnout data.
Out of curiosity, how do they interpret 3rd party left-leaning votes, particularly in swing states? Obviously those wouldn't have decided this election, just curious since you seem to be in the know.
If I understand their outlook, first job is getting people who consistently vote for Dems to be reminded and motivated to go to the polls. 2nd is convincing consistent voters to vote for you (that includes Republicans and third party), a distant last is convincing non-voters or occasional voters. I think the problem with trying to get 3rd party voters to vote for Dems is that the type of person that votes 3rd party is very difficult to convince that you're an ally.
They could completely realign the party platform to fit with 3rd party and non voters biggest issues and most won't shift their vote for many reasons. Disgust for the 2 party system, distrust that the party will follow a more left wing agenda, conspiracy theories, the needs to be contrarian or protect their sense of moral purity, etc.
While I'm not sure I agree with the parties approach to disaffected voters. I do think the amount of investment needed to get those voters is possibly outweighed by the amount of voters you may lose in the process. And that sense of inherent risk is stopping the party from taking a chance. Maybe we get lucky and they no longer see an alternative, but I doubt it.
That's because fascism has never and will never be beaten at the ballot box.