• MagicShel@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Man… don’t take this language personally. It’s just the only way I know how to speak right now.

    In what fucking world do you think a more progressive candidate would’ve turned Michigan and Pennsylvania blue?

    Christ. I hope I’m fucking wrong. Because I do believe in a more progressive agenda. And I’m in Michigan. But this takeaway is absolutely fucking nuts to me.

    The last thing we need is for the hardcore blue states to be even bluer while the battleground states are all red.

    I don’t know, man. Explain your math to me. Because I can’t wrap my head around it. But I haven’t slept in like 36 hours, either, so maybe it’s just me.

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      I didn’t say progressive. Progressive is a very broad term that can apply to all sorts of things.

      I said economic-populist. One of the few things nearly all of us agree on in this country, is that the corporations and the ownership class have too much power in politics, and they’re getting that power by stealing money from the working class. Trump was good at speaking to that, without actually doing much to help. The Democrats did some to help. But not enough, and they didn’t want to sell it much for fear of scaring off the ownership/donor class.

      Leave behind all the racial, sexual, social justice progressive stuff. It’s divisive and won’t help you win. Helping the poor generally, will disproportionately help those people more anyway. Just without putting them in the spot light.

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Harris lost Michigan by fewer votes than the number of people who voted “uncommitted” in the primary.

      I don’t think the lesson here is to be more moderate or more conservative.

      • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        You know, uncommitted doesn’t really bother me. Had I bothered voting in the primary, I’d probably have voted uncommitted, too. Because I’m not really happy about the administration’s handling of the Israel-Gaza situation.

        But I damn sure voted for Kamala yesterday. I hope the Jill Stein voters feel really fucking smug about teaching Democrats a lesson when Trump tells Netanyahu to just push all the Muslims into the fucking ocean, and sells them the bulldozers to do it. I hope they all fucking cheer when they watch it livestreamed, Xclusively on X.

        Because I assume that’s what they wanted out of this election, and by gum, they fucking got it.

        • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I wonder if democrats feel good about supporting (leadership) or excusing (voters) genocide because they thought they had to to win, but lost anyway.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        That was entirely about Israel and Gaza. The Democrats refused to distance themselves from the Republicans on that. Both sides were all in on the genocide. So yah people who felt it was the number one issue, had little reason to vote for Democrats over Republicans.

        • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          Little reason to vote Democrat over Republican?

          Donald Trump said he wants Israel to “finish the job.” The Democrats at least were making overtures to peace. Were sending aid to Gaza.

          Kamala was walking a tightrope. She was losing voters to Trump who didn’t think she was pro-Israel enough, and others to Stein who didn’t think she was anti-Israel enough.

          Strategic voting is important in a first-past-the-post system, and those who rejected Kamala because she wasn’t sufficiently anti-genocide for them get to sit in the knowledge that they helped her lose, and helped put a man who will absolutely make the genocide worse in power.

          Edit: But yes, my point was she probably could’ve gotten some of those voters if she’d been more anti-genocide.

          • Steve@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Donald Trump said he wants Israel to “finish the job.” The Democrats at least were making overtures to peace.

            Do you want 10 pounds of shit or 11? Who cares?

            The pro-Israel crowd were already mostly evangelicals, all in on Trump from the get go.
            Nobody would have voted for Stein if Harris took her Gaza rhetoric.

            • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 hours ago

              I agree that she should’ve been pro-Gaza. I just also understand why she wasn’t.

              It was calculated and cowardly, words that define the modern Democratic Party.