... You do remember these are the same people that went unvaccinated and unmasked during COVID and took dewormer for a viral infection, right?
chaonaut
joined 1 year ago
If the Uncommitted movement had tens of millions of registered voters come together and pledge to vote Harris if and only if she took a harder stance on Israel, that might have helped.
... are you familiar with what the Uncommitted National Movement was asking for? Like, half of Lemmy is bashing the Uncommitteds for the 15m vote difference between Biden in 2020 and Harris in 2024.
Like, do you get that Listen to Michigan alone got 101k Uncommitted votes in the Michigan Dem Primary to Biden's 618k? That they had a stated goal of "an immediate and permanent ceasefire"? That there were Uncommitted delegates to the Democratic National Convention that were denied the opportunity to speak at the convention? That the there were protests outside the DNC demanding the Uncommitted movement be allowed to speak?
Which part of this is failing at being the movement you're saying the DNC would listen to? If the 15m gap is truly completely at the feet of the Uncommitted, then what are you saying was the reason that the DNC cut them out of their strategy?
There is a lot of "invisible" work that party orgs do. If you want to see why big names and attention alone don't work, look at the Green Party. They have name recognition, ballot access and even get a bit of the vote each presidential election. What they're missing is the "ground game" that gives the presence in nearly every race in every precinct, and the local engagement to actually win an appreciable chunk of elections every year (not just the presidential years).
As a fellow old fuck, surely you must remember Obama publicly opposing gay marriage to win voters, no? And, surely, of like me, you've been voting in primaries and "off-year" elections for decades like I have, you must remember the various progressives running for the Dem nomination only to have people like John Kerry and Al Gore be the "exciting, energetic" candidates. Sure, we can point to Clinton, but his strategy involved being conservative enough to pull in Reagan Dems and middle class Republicans, as well as the usual Democratic mainstays. You know, the play the Dems keep running while not having someone with Bill's "good ole boy" personality to pull it off.
And, yeah, it's been a breath of fresh air seeing unions do as well as they have recently, after being pounded into the dirt for decades. And, yeah, the economy is doing better, but people still struggle to pay for groceries and housing. Do you remember when George Bush couldn't answer what the price of milk was, and how hard he got beat up over that? Did you vote in '92? I was too young, but I still remember hearing about the price of milk everywhere for a long stretch there.
I dunno, I'm just kind of tired of voting Blue election after election while getting told the issues that are important to me just can't be done right now, because we need to appeal enough to Republicans again. Having to fight tooth and nail to get whatever issues some ground, be it civil rights, the environment or social services, and then see it up on the chopping block the moment Dems need to "compromise" with Republicans to not tear up a different right. And we still lose, or win just enough to not have enough of a majority to get anything done. The closest I've seen to Dems doing well while I've been able to vote? When they embraced the possibility of change and getting things done with Obama's Hope campaign.
And, again, this is coming from someone who has voted for Harris, votes in primaries and off-year elections, who has done phone banking for the Dems, been involved in local orgs, has advocated to disillusioned voters to get out to the polls to vote because of how awful the alternative for not voting is.
But, you tell me: how successful was the Dem's strategy this cycle? Did they manage to pick up votes on their right flank? What was the gain in conservative Dem voters vs. the loss in progressives? How does the gap compare to previous elections? What sort of voters did their appeal to "the middle" yield? I'm something of a numbers wonk at the end of the day and tend to be more receptive to the analysis instead of what I see as knee-jerk scapegoating, so tell me what went well this time around.
Weird, seems like it's been the repeated denial of progressive issues while courting further and further right that has cost the Democrats the four of the past seven elections, no matter how much we beg for the slightest crumb of civil rights.
I remember how much we had to fight Democrats to get Gay Marriage and LGBT rights in general, and have seen how far they have fled from unions and healthcare. And I say this as someone who has actually done phone banking for the Dems, and has been telling people who are personally invested in what happens to people in Palestine that Harris is the best option on the ballot.
But, yeah, I guess individual voters are the best people to blame, and complaining that people cared enough about an issue to get out and do political action are the problem, and we should smugly congratulate ourselves that they should have just shut up and got with the program, their friends and family members be damned.
Well, what's important is that Harris never listened to people who care about Palestinians. Surely, we will all be better off that the Harris campaign decided to hew closely to Biden's policies, court Republicans for her cabinet and chase suburban Trump voters. Clearly, this is entirely the fault of individual voters, and we all agree that the campaign, corporate media organizations and monied interests bear no responsibility for this whatsoever.
Signal is moderation.
Generating signal is moderating noise. The first moderator of any message is the person converting ideas into language. Understanding the interplay of how messages get moderated by the various layers they pass through is what media literacy is.
I holding my finger over the button as long as possible in the hope that the button that the "spotless prosecutorial record" will suddenly add the "stop abetting a genocide" portion we've been asking for since before they changed out the previous button, but I guess I'll be going for the option that isn't currently telling me how my existence is threatening to them and hope that they'll follow through on valuing human life this time around.
I miss when signal-to-noise ratio was common parlance of the Internet.
Making usable spaces is tough work, but having worthwhile content drowned in an ocean of noise is seemingly the default of corporate controlled media anymore, so much have they abandoned paying attention to what they publish. That you don't know who is editorializing and moderating the places you frequent and have opinions on the job they're doing says to me that you're not doing the work that being media literate requires, which is all the more important when so much of it is generated content with no consideration given to reality.
If you look back at panel 2, there's a potential third one to research
Then you must be quite frustrated that Israel disagrees.
Israel seized control of the Rafah border crossing. The impact could be devastating
view more: next ›
For whatever reason, when I'm hearing about Dems in the swing state I'm in, I'm hardly ever hearing why you should be excited to vote for the Dem candidate, but instead why the Rep candidate is so awful that you simply must vote Dem to stop them. Like, there was about a week(?) that Harris and Walz seemed to be coming out of the gate going "we're gonna be so awesome, don't even worry about the weirdos on the other side", but then it became "please, it is of Vital Importance you do not vote for Trump, we promise Harris will be better than him", and I just don't understand why they changed.