And that’s cool…
As long as when people want her to align more closely with the Dem voting base, you don’t yell at them for questioning the only option and imply they’re trying to help trump.
That bullshit only depresses Dem turnout and actually helps trump.
It’s just completely nonsensical to hear all the “moderates” claim they’d vote for anyone not trump, then go feral when someone points out banning fracking would hand the Dems Pennsylvania which trump needs to win the election.
There are multiple issues like that where if Kamala moved to the left she’d lock this election down.
If you truly only care about beating trump, your time online would be more productive trying to pull the party left than trying to pull tens of millions of voters to the right…
With the obvious benefit of getting those popular policies on top of beating trump.
If it’s not been posted already…
https://theintercept.com/2024/09/10/polls-arms-embargo-israel-weapons-gaza/
Banning sales of arms to Israel would not only attract a huge proportion of otherwise reluctant leftists, but might even steal votes from Trump as a small but not insignificant number of voters have been fooled by his ‘started no wars’ con. The idea that doing so would lose some key demographic is clearly not supported by the data.
But the Democratic strategists are not idiots. They must know this. So one of two things is the case; the polling is wrong, or the Democrats have absolutely no desire to move leftward on this and are willing to risk a Trump win to hold out on their position.
We can rule out the first because if the Democrats had better poll data they’d share it. Nothing to lose by doing so.
So we’re left with the second.
Odd then that the online vitriol is delivered not to the Democrats for cynically risking a Trump victory, but to leftists for being opposed to genocide.
The idea that doing so would lose some key demographic is clearly not supported by the data.
They wouldn’t lose significant voters, theyd lose a bunch of donations…
It doesn’t cost a billion plus to beat donald trump, but the more money there is, the bigger everyone’s slice is and the bigger the bonuses for personally bringing more money is.
The DNC isn’t being run to get Dems in office, it’s a fucking grift where sometimes we do get a Dem in office.
Just never one who’s political policy matches Dem voters.
Look at current DNC leadership, it’s not people that know how to win elections, it’s just whoever can bring in the most donations.
The result is ridiculously expensive and incompetent campaigns. The solution is clearing house at the DNC.
The DNC isn’t being run to get Dems in office, it’s a fucking grift where sometimes we do get a Dem in office.
True. And a cushy consulting job, or a few thousand in bonuses seems like an understandable inventive, if a misanthropic one.
But for those who do the footwork supporting such a system, I just cannot see why. What have the Democrats done to deserve such blind obedience? Is being not-Trump just that impressive these days?
This is absolutely correct. I’m sure the 40% of voters who want to keep sending weapons to Israel aren’t even Harris voters. So clearly the Democratic party is only doing it for the love of genocide and it seems obvious that after they finish the genocide in Gaza and Lebanon they’ll shift their focus to genocide of Palestinians and other arabs living in America. This is completely unacceptable to me which is why I voted for Trump.
I thought about voting for a third party but I live in a swing state and want to minimize the chances of Koncentration Kamp Kamala from getting elected so I directly supported Trump rather than indirectly.
I live in a swing state and want to minimize the chances of Koncentration Kamp Kamala from getting elected so I directly supported Trump rather than indirectly.
I could no more vote Trump ‘tactically’ than I could Harris. I think one ought vote according to one’s concience. The whole notion of tactical voting makes a mockery of democracy, if no one could be persuaded to vote tactically there’d be significantly less ‘electioneering’. More like the Nordic model, with way more parties catering to a broader range of political views.
You only have to look at the current Democrat campaign, they barely need a policy at all, they’re running almost entirely on being not-Trump.
Sooooo… because you can’t be bothered to understand how things work. You voted for someone that suggests that Israel “finish the job.”
That sure showed those pesky libs!
You’re about as bad-faith as it gets. You’re MAGA, through and through. Drop the act that it has anything to do with genocide.
Absent of any anti-Trump arguments, I’d like to hear the case for Kamala being a truly great President. A few policy positions she, in particular, is notable for?
She used to be a prosecutor. That means she can see things from both sides and look at things objectively and not make rash decisions. It’s a good quality for a president.
We larping pigs now?
JFC… Is there anything liberal about the modern moderate democrats?
Disgusting statism and corporatism is all they seem to be about.
They got theirs, fuck everyone else.
No…that’s the Republican Party platform. The current Democratic Party is very much about make the government work for the people and do at least something to rein in the rich and corporations
acab… But prosecutors aren’t cops and if your simple brain can’t comprehend the difference, then I don’t know what to tell you. Our society would not function without people in roles that enforce the laws that our government passes.
I would love to hear how you would go about punishing/rehabilitating/removing from society a murderer justly and fairly without prosecutors. Truly, I’m all ears.
I mean My Only Hope from her being a prosecutor is that she actually prosecutes crimes, I’m not very hopeful of that especially with her seemingly not wanting to bring back Lena Khan, but I can dream. However normally being a prosecutor would disqualify you for me, good people don’t become prosecutors.
Did she say something about not bringing back Lina Khan? The only thing I saw was that Mark Cuban said he didn’t like her (which is just another plus in my mind. If the billionaires are scared of you, you’re doing something right), and whoever printed the article decided to call him a “Harris Surrogate.”
Which I’m pretty sure is just flat out untrue. He supports her, and maybe he was even organizing for her. But “surrogate” means he speaks for her, and as far as I understand it, he absolutely does not
Good people do become prosecutors. Why? Because they don’t want to see bad people on the street. Sometimes you’ll wind up having to fight against someone innocent, but that doesn’t necessarily make someone bad. You have to prove without a doubt that that person didn’t do it. It’s essentially debating whether they did it or not. That doesn’t make a prosecutor bad.
what’s on offer is simply the Dem agenda with a younger change of guard
See, that’s what I’m not thrilled about.
You want a party that works for the rich and corporations, blows up the budgets recklessly, and thinks the low and middle classes are a resource to be used and drained: Republicans.
While we are on this spicy topic today, someone please remind me, what did Jill Stein do?
You’re only arguing the “I’d vote for a ham sandwich to keep the GOP from power” side. You don’t need to argue that part, we all know this, and it isn’t what the person you’re replying to was asking.
No one even said anything about Jill Stein here, bringing her up now feels like a very bad faith argument.
The last time this country had a balanced budget it was Democrat.
Not even balanced - Clinton produced a surplus during his last couple of years in office. Had we continued on that path, we would now be debt-free as a nation, instead of in debt to the tune of $35 fucking trillion (equivalent to a full seven years of tax revenues).
Start with what makes a good president? Obviously there’s the issues and all that which people focus on, but that’s subject to debate. Objectively, some qualities are definitely good, like being good at both urgent and non-urgent decision making, good at managing/organizing/handling chaos, capable of outsmarting adversaries, being a unifying force rather than a divisive one. Just to name a few. So let’s look at those:
- Decision-making: She’s relatively young compared to recent presidents, definitely a bit more in touch with modern reality and less tied to the old ways of doing politics. She’s faced a tough choice with her running mate, and while Walz has been criticized by some, given the short timeframe it’s clear she at least didn’t fuck it up. Her debate prep clearly succeeded, and she’s avoided any scandals despite clearly Republicans trying very hard to find them. All of these show a record of decent to good decisions.
- Managing, etc Obviously her campaign started in the midst of chaos, and there were a lot of fears regarding that transition. And it went probably better than anyone expected, with everyone quickly gaining confidence in her.
- Outsmarting adversaries She did a better job at this in the debate than any candidate in my memory.
- Unifying force Again I’ll refer to her getting everyone behind her after Biden dropped, while also keeping Biden’s support. Don’t underestimate how unlikely that seemed before it happened.
I’ll avoid comparing Trump who is obviously severely deficient in all of these respects. But I could go further and say she obviously compares favorably to Biden too, and compared to Obama, I’d give her an edge on outsmarting adversaries and managing, and Obama probably gets the edge on the other 2. But we’ll see.
Except for embracing firearms, I dont think she has a few poicy positions for anyone to evaluate. She just adopts whatever Bidens policies were. She did the same thing when she was running for president before Biden tapped her for VP. Couldnt formulate a policy position to save her life.
Sure the meme is Kamala can be a terrible President, but I would vote for a Ham sandwich to keep the GOP from power ?
Maybe a club, or a ruben. I don’t know about just plain ham.
Hamala
