Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

flabberghaster wrote

He's not wrong. Obviously trump is worse. We know this. But I'm not voting for genocide.

Fuck the democrats for playing chicken every four years with the presidency. Why are they engaging in this deeply unpopular war and then making it everyone else's fault when they lose? Fuck them.

1

twovests OP wrote

Yeah; I agree a lot with what Bernie has to say (and I wish we had gotten him in 2016 or 2020) but this is how I feel too. I don't think it's exaggeration to say that this election is existential for me personally, but even then, I couldn't vote for her. I ended up voting for Clauda de la Cruz as a protest vote.

I live in a normally-blue state that could feasibly swing red by the protest vote. If dems lose easy blue states to protest votes, maybe they'll start meeting voters where they're at, instead of bowing to AIPAC and evangelical Christians.

I can't stop thinking about how many votes Harries left on the table. We saw the Uncommitted National Movement do a huge amount of organizing during the primaries, mobilizing otherwise-unlikely voters in amazing numbers in swing states, preparing easy wins for Harris on a platter when she took the candidacy. She threw away hundreds of thousands of unlikely voters -- and likely the election -- because she loves genocide too much.

The "less genocide is still genocide" argument is reductionist but true. I think we're going to have four years of seeing what "more genocide" looks like. Even if the Dems go way left, the issue might be moot by 2028.

2

flabberghaster wrote

I suspect she's trying the Starmer playbook (which is the standard dem one). Just try to not say anything that gets you a negative news cycle and be the alternative while you let your opponent be horrible.

For this she needs to not piss off the big donors or corporate class, and they tend to be pro Zionism. The fact that most people aren't is one thing, but the fact that the news media, advertisers, and big donors tend to be means if she says she supports reigning in Israel's actions, that's gonna create a news cycle or risk turning off the donors.

This is the same reason dems never do good things. M4A is popular among the populace, but unpopular among the rich donors, and if they went for it their more conservative opponents would get the donations instead if them and then beat them.

3

twovests OP wrote

Asking genuinely-- who is Starmer? I tried googling it and only get the recent UK PM, who I figure isn't the same playbook.

In either case, I really still get the impression that she could've won over more support than she'd lose if she, e.g. just allowed the one Palestinian speaker at the DNC.

2

flabberghaster wrote

No that's who I mean. Labour won in Parliament by purging the left, and then just sitting there and letting the conservative party shit itself.

2