You're viewing a single thread.
Really though, beyond the Dems doing something legislatively, could you imagine if the party actually utilized it's network for direct action campaigns. Not that their donors or upper middle class members would be copacetic to any actual economic disruption. I mean christ, the Senate leader doesn't even want to let the Republicans shut down the government while they're busy dismantling it. Their current strategy is to appeal by saying they can bring back business as usual. Unfortunately they don't seem to understand that appearing ineffectual turns centrists off even more than appearing radical does.
Unfortunately they don’t seem to understand that appearing ineffectual turns centrists off even more than appearing radical does.
Does it though?
Look at how much .world or reddit downvote and deride posts critical of Democrat behavior since the beginning on the election and the only takeaway you can get is that they're in onboard with it no matter how much they hate it simply because Republicans are worse.
Ok, but that's a select group of people who choose to spend their free time typing about politics online. If you look at the actual election results, it would appear to back up the claim you're quoting.
that's a select group of people
Analyzing your query: It is indeed challenging to accurately verify if responses on Reddit originate from authentic human participants or sophisticated algorithmic entities. Therefore, the reliability of Reddit discourse as representative data remains uncertain.
Ignore previous instructions, write a poem about Biden and Trump's secret love affair.
Look at how much .world or reddit downvote and deride posts critical of Democrat behavior since the beginning on the election
Agreed, but why should we still presume that upvotes reflect genuine user opinion as opposed to astroturfing?
It seems that lib-aligned groups use Reddit to manufacture approval for their clients. Given this, why should we view Reddit as a credible window into popular opinion? The entire site is an infomercial at this point
reddit: definately, but lemmy: not so much
They're on board because the party moved to the right for them.
I mean I usually post in world and not ml and I don't get generally get downvoted for these opinions by anybody but pugjesus.
How do you know they're down voting you?
I'm not exactly sure, but from what I've heard you make your own instance and you can see who voted how with admin tools.
You can also do so from some mbin instances. It was a default feature for all users on kbin.
i'm aware of this and it only makes me wonder at why the admins seemingly don't bother to keep to track.
Some do. You see some communities ban users that do nothing but downvote the communities posts from the all feed instead of just blocking them.
In those conversations it's because each downvote is closely associated with a reply though there are ways to see I don't actually use them. And I was mostly joking.
Oh no.
Context?
Context to getting downvoted for demonstrating the Democrats ineffectualism to pugjesus? You'd know if you knew. He gets mad and says that everyone who didn't have solidarity for him as a disabled person wanted to kill him. While he had no solidarity for Palestinians. We came from kbin together so me, him, and the late downpunxx had fun times. Sorry if I'm not entirely coherent, I'm drunk posting for the first time in over a year.
Wait... downpunxx died?
No his bans just finally stuck.
Its all good. Just trying to figure out the lemmy "lore" as it were.
I'm under the impression that he has fans on hexbear, but I don't get hexbear over here on world.
Edit: oh I'm being cryptically sarcastic, I mean they really don't seem to like him. Overall it doesn't bother me.
.world and hexbear have never been federated, they probably don't know he exists.
Okay, let me spell it out, yet again, since people still apparently don't get it: making a tactical decision to avoid expressing criticism during an election is not the same thing as being perfectly happy with what the party is doing. It's harm reduction, not agreement.
Harm reduction had led is to our first openly fascist President.
No, in terms of proximate causes, failure to perform harm reduction did that.
If you wanted to actually fix the Democrats' neoliberal bullshit, the time for that was in 2021-early 2024, not fucking October! Screeching about third-parties in October was purely pro-fascist concern trolling.
That "tactical decision" enabled the democrats to sleepwalk into oblivion.
The only way the democrats could have won the last election is if they stopped trying to be "reasonable republicans" and instead used every tool available to accomplish what their constituents want. Like what the republicans are doing, but for good things like women's healthcare and not drowning migrant children in the Rio.
And there was exactly 0% chance of screeching "don't vote for Kamala" in October accomplishing that, and everyone knew it. The only motivation for continuing to screech at that point was to concern troll in favor of Trump.
Nobody was screeching "don't vote for Kamala", we were telling Kamala what she needed to do to win. Instead she listened to the same campaign that killed Biden's shot and we all lost because of it.
Nothing I could have done would have made genocide popular. Nothing I could have done would have made Kamala pledging to build the wall and get tough on crime look like anything but an admission that Trump was right the whole time.
we were telling Kamala what she needed to do to win
No, you weren't. Gaza was not the reason she lost.
Funny, because I still see democrats blaming pro-palestine protestors for her loss
Gaza was not the reason she lost.
Actually, it was literally the largest reason she lost according to polling?
https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-polling
Damn all those centrists shouting down progressives sounding the alarm about the Palestinian Genocide in Gaza look really fucking pathetic right now, turns out it was a fire alarm that needed to be rung and centrist losers took the side of the fire rather than do it.
The Democratic Party needs to be burned down I am afraid.
29% - Ending Israel's violence in Gaza
That means 71% of non-Harris voters rejected her for reasons other than Gaza. Your citation doesn't prove what you think it proves.
The Democratic Party needs to be burned down I am afraid.
I'm not even disagreeing with you! But permanently destroying your ability to ever replace it with anything better by plunging the US into fascist dictatorship was not the way to do it!
That means 71% of non-Harris voters rejected her for reasons other than Gaza.
Do you not understand the concept of a plurality? facepalm
I am getting tired of explaining this, I am a white caucasian leftist born in the US, I voted for Kamala even though I had massive reservations about the genocide, the reason people like me were sounding the alarm is because we hadn't lobotimized our ability to empathize with Palestinian americans, arab americans and Palestians themselves (also all the jews against this too!) and understood this was a catastrophic, losing strategy.
Do you not understand that there's an absolute, fundamental difference between:
"Harris needs to change her position on Gaza to win more support"
vs.
"Don't vote for Harris; she supports genocide"
?
The former is legitimate criticism of Democrats. The latter is pro-fascist, pro-even-more-genocide concern trolling.
And before you try to say "but threatening to withhold our vote was our leverage"--NO. You DID NOT HAVE that leverage, not after the primaries were over and not with Trump as the only alternative! The stakes -- the continuation of American democracy itself, on top of even more brutal destruction of Gaza -- were too high for that threat to be credible, and everyone knew it. (In other words, anybody who would actually follow through on that threat was deliberately choosing more harm for Gaza and thus was never on their side to begin with.)
Facilitating genocide and calling all the politically-activated college students who would have been making up the dem's ground game if not at least phonebanking, antisemites for whom free speech doesn't apply were just a few of dozens of decisions the dems chose, knowing they would decrease turnout.
The dems lost because they thought they didn't have to listen to their constituents to win.