It doesn’t matter what they wanted, since every single 3rd party vote (including right wing third parties) could have gone to Kamala and she still would have lost.
First of all, 3rd party voters could make the difference in any given election because multiple elections have been much closer than this one. They had no idea whether they were going to make the difference or not when they filled out their ballots.
Secondly, many, if not most, of those 3rd party voters REALLY didn’t want Trump, but they also wanted a 3rd party canidate more than Harris. Now they get Trump, their least favorite pick. And again, they filled out their ballots not knowing if they were going to be responsible for that happening or not.
Also, while it didn’t matter overall, at least Wisconsin would have swung Harris if she got the majority of 3rd party voters, not even all of them. So it did matter in some states, even though probably not in enough.
But the point is they COULD have made the difference and for all they knew at the time were making the difference because in other elections 3rd party votes have made the difference. If anything, it not mattering in this election is just going to embolden them to vote 3rd party again in another election where we find out afterward that it really would have made the difference.
And it’s not like there’s any reality at all where their 3rd party candidate could have won, so why take that massive gamble? The bottom line is that we are NOWHERE NEAR a 3rd party winning a presidential election, so it’s patently stupid to vote 3rd party in a presidential election. I mean the 3rd party candidate with the most votes only got half of a single percentage of the total votes. And that was magician Jill Stein, who disappears into thin air for years at a time and magically reappears a couple months out from every election.
Whenever I see people bring that up, there seems to be an assumption that Kamala definitely would have won if more people voted. Maybe that’s true, but who’s to say? I do agree that Dems need to increase turnout if they want to remain competitive, and I hope they do that by running a better campaign rather than banking on the idea that being “not Trump” will be enough to win. I’m not optimistic about that though.
Fair point. But I’ll add that conservatives show up to vote. It’s almost a given that trump got all he was going to get. Of the 90,000,000 people that chose not to- it’s safe to assume that many of them would have voted for Kamala had it not been for the single issue non-voters, or protest non-voters.
I agree with the rest of your point. And well said.
Would’ve happened regardless of my vote and the votes of Green/PSL voters. Your candidate had the worst electoral performance since the Republicans took California. Would’ve needed a better candidate and a party that actually listens to criticism, instead y’all chose to stuff your fingers in your ears and dismiss any and all criticism and proceeded to eat shit, as we told you would happen. You can’t pin this one on us, the failure is on your candidate and party.
Would’ve needed a better candidate and a party that actually listens to criticism
Liberals (and independents) complained that Biden was too old (despite Trump being equally old) and it became a serious issue and they replaced him with a younger candidate. That’s called listening to criticism.
You can’t pin this one on us
Not retroactively. But every single 3rd party voter filled out their ballots not knowing if they were going to make the difference or not. Because some elections have come a lot closer than this one and 3rd party voters did make the difference. It’s not particularly meaningful to me that you point out it wasn’t your fault after the fact, when you didn’t know whether it would be your fault or not at the time. That’s like a kid admitting he threw the kitchen knife at his sister but it didn’t hit her so everything is totally fine and the subject can be closed.
The fact remains that it’s patently stupid to vote for a 3rd party presidential candidate because we are NOWHERE NEAR a 3rd party winning a presidential election. I mean the 3rd party candidate with the most votes only got half of a single percentage of the total votes. And that was magician Jill Stein, who disappears into thin air for years at a time and magically reappears a couple months out from every election.
Not retroactively. But every single 3rd party voter filled out their ballots not knowing if they were going to make the difference or not. Because some elections have come a lot closer than this one and 3rd party voters did make the difference. It’s not particularly meaningful to me that you point out it wasn’t your fault after the fact, when you didn’t know whether it would be your fault or not at the time. That’s like a kid admitting he threw the kitchen knife at his sister but it didn’t hit her so everything is totally fine and the subject can be closed.
The question is what you’re looking at. If your primary concern is understanding why Kamala lost, then it is very relevant to point out the fact that we did not cost her the election. If your primary concern is establishing the moral standing of individual voters, then I suppose it’s less relevant.
To be perfectly clear, if we cost a candidate like Kamala the election, I would be perfectly fine with it. I wish that we did represent a larger contingent of the vote so that we had the power to deny a win to any candidate that doesn’t meet our demands. It would be preferable if our kitchen knife hit and we could claim credit for it. Unfortunately, your candidate lost for other reasons.
Of course, the only analysis liberals seem capable of is looking at the moral purity of individual voters. It is inconceivable to punch up and critique our rulers. The Democratic party can never fail, it can only be failed. This aversion to self-critique and reflection is itself part of why the Democrats failed, and why they will continue to fail.
Nobody was denying that was an outcome, just that it was a daft one. That’s why they were trying to convince you it was daft. You could only say ‘Told you so’, if what they were saying wasn’t true.
It wouldn’t have changed the outcome regardless of how we voted or what we said. But the criticisms we were making weren’t just about our own values or preferences, they were things that would have allowed her to appeal to a much broader section of the population. It was not our willingness to criticize and take a stand that caused this, but the Democrats’ stubbornness and unwillingness to listen to criticism.
Ultimately, it just goes to show the necessity of building a better party from the ground up. The one thing Democrats are supposed to be good for is keeping Trump out, they’ve abandoned any pretence of actually helping people or not committing mass murder, and they can’t even do that. It’s a sinking ship.
It introduced apathy that could’ve changed the outcome. You’re not including all the people who didn’t vote.
There were no easy policies that would’ve led to victory. Doesn’t matter if the policies are objectively good or popular as she was up against a misinformation machine. She ran a near perfect campaign in the time she had. And Biden only came back initially because yous already voted Trump in once. You got exactly the government you deserve unfortunately.
Could’ve united and killed the republicans party. Locked Trump up. Shifted the Overton window back and gotten some leftists as the opposition but looks like you’ll need to do it the hard way.
She ran a near perfect campaign in the time she had.
Near perfect? Is that a joke?
She ran on the status quo which is absolutely not working for a ton of people. She campaigned with Dick Cheney, an immensely unpopular politician across the entire political spectrum responsible for a pointless war that killed countless people. She completely failed to adapt to a changing media environment with streamers and the like, which the Republicans took full advantage of. The messaging she did have was completely unfocused, the one moment she had of doing something right was calling Republicans weird, which she then dropped because of civility-brain. And that’s not even talking about Palestine!
What on earth did she do right strategically? Near perfect? I can hardly think of a single thing she didn’t screw up! And the result was, again, the worst electoral result since the Republicans took Cali. Absolutely insane thing to assert.
Could’ve united and killed the republicans party. Locked Trump up. Shifted the Overton window back and gotten some leftists as the opposition but looks like you’ll need to do it the hard way.
No, none of that could’ve happened. Leftist defectors were not a large enough contingent to have swung the election. Even if we were, and had fallen in line, it wouldn’t have done shit for the Overton window, it would’ve kept going right and shown the Democrats that there’s zero consequences for moving so far right that they’re actively committing genocide. This idiotic and self-defeating strategy of falling in line behind the lesser evil is what the left has been doing for generations and it’s how we got here in the first place.
Question for you: where do you think Trump came from? Do you think he’s just a random fluke, or were there root causes that allowed someone like him to become popular? Follow up, do you think that a problem can be addressed using the same approach that created the problem in the first place?
Y’all are completely conservative in your thinking, you’re just trying to cling to a past that is gone for good. If the Democratic party fails to adapt to changing conditions, then it will die, and the only question is how much wasted effort we put into it before we realize it’s a lost cause.
She wasn’t trying to win your vote. The population votes for the status quo. Deviation from that would’ve led to her loss. You weren’t going to get another Sanders in the time she had.
Has there been an American president who wasn’t contributing one way or another to a genocide? Idk why people act like that’s surprising. They’re all war criminals. There’s a difference between that and actively egging them to ramp it up while using ‘Palestinians’ as a slur.
The Cons would’ve felt the consequences, as Trumps crimes were laid bare over the subsequent years and the extent of their delusion publicly dissected. Embarrassment is one of the few things fascists understand.
This vacuum would’ve led to space for leftist voices to emerge.
No Trump was not a fluke, but you’d assume in the Information age someone so blatantly acting against your interests wouldn’t be your pick.
Dems aren’t ever going to solve anything either way. It’s just a nicer environment for the rest of us to try and do so.
She wasn’t trying to win your vote. The population votes for the status quo. Deviation from that would’ve led to her loss. You weren’t going to get another Sanders in the time she had.
Oh, well then, my congratulations to President Harris on winning the election.
No they fucking don’t vote for the status quo when the status quo is fucked. Trump at least postures that he’s different (even though he’s more of the same) which is why it’s hardly surprising that he won.
No Trump was not a fluke, but you’d assume in the Information age someone so blatantly acting against your interests wouldn’t be your pick.
He wasn’t my pick.
Dems aren’t ever going to solve anything either way. It’s just a nicer environment for the rest of us to try and do so.
And what does trying to do so look like? Would it, perhaps, involve forming an organization, say, a party, that actually represents the interests of the people?
Which third party candidate is an anti-democratic felon rapist?
Right over your head.
If you’re implying that I’m not voting for the Democrats and thereby supporting Trump
I’m not implying. It’s a simple fact. One that you don’t appear to be capable of understanding.
But please, keep being a stable genius by voting for candidates that cannot, and will not, win until their parties do the work necessary to become viable, which they aren’t.
They only don’t win because people don’t vote for them. People would literally rather support a party that doesn’t align with their views. That’s the part going over your head.
Told you so?
But we told them so.
Vote 3rd party and an anti-democratic felon rapist will be your leader.
Then it happened.
Could they also tell us I told you so?
3rd party voters, “Focus on these issues or we won’t vote for you and you will lose.”
Dems didn’t listen to voters and instead moved closer to corporations/conservatives.
Then it happened.
And now those 3rd party voters who didn’t want that, are getting that, to the extreme.
It doesn’t matter what they wanted, since every single 3rd party vote (including right wing third parties) could have gone to Kamala and she still would have lost.
But that doesn’t change my comment.
First of all, 3rd party voters could make the difference in any given election because multiple elections have been much closer than this one. They had no idea whether they were going to make the difference or not when they filled out their ballots.
Secondly, many, if not most, of those 3rd party voters REALLY didn’t want Trump, but they also wanted a 3rd party canidate more than Harris. Now they get Trump, their least favorite pick. And again, they filled out their ballots not knowing if they were going to be responsible for that happening or not.
Also, while it didn’t matter overall, at least Wisconsin would have swung Harris if she got the majority of 3rd party voters, not even all of them. So it did matter in some states, even though probably not in enough.
But the point is they COULD have made the difference and for all they knew at the time were making the difference because in other elections 3rd party votes have made the difference. If anything, it not mattering in this election is just going to embolden them to vote 3rd party again in another election where we find out afterward that it really would have made the difference.
And it’s not like there’s any reality at all where their 3rd party candidate could have won, so why take that massive gamble? The bottom line is that we are NOWHERE NEAR a 3rd party winning a presidential election, so it’s patently stupid to vote 3rd party in a presidential election. I mean the 3rd party candidate with the most votes only got half of a single percentage of the total votes. And that was magician Jill Stein, who disappears into thin air for years at a time and magically reappears a couple months out from every election.
Now consider all the people that stayed home and didn’t vote in protest. People seem to like leaving them out.
Whenever I see people bring that up, there seems to be an assumption that Kamala definitely would have won if more people voted. Maybe that’s true, but who’s to say? I do agree that Dems need to increase turnout if they want to remain competitive, and I hope they do that by running a better campaign rather than banking on the idea that being “not Trump” will be enough to win. I’m not optimistic about that though.
Fair point. But I’ll add that conservatives show up to vote. It’s almost a given that trump got all he was going to get. Of the 90,000,000 people that chose not to- it’s safe to assume that many of them would have voted for Kamala had it not been for the single issue non-voters, or protest non-voters.
I agree with the rest of your point. And well said.
Would’ve happened regardless of my vote and the votes of Green/PSL voters. Your candidate had the worst electoral performance since the Republicans took California. Would’ve needed a better candidate and a party that actually listens to criticism, instead y’all chose to stuff your fingers in your ears and dismiss any and all criticism and proceeded to eat shit, as we told you would happen. You can’t pin this one on us, the failure is on your candidate and party.
Liberals (and independents) complained that Biden was too old (despite Trump being equally old) and it became a serious issue and they replaced him with a younger candidate. That’s called listening to criticism.
Not retroactively. But every single 3rd party voter filled out their ballots not knowing if they were going to make the difference or not. Because some elections have come a lot closer than this one and 3rd party voters did make the difference. It’s not particularly meaningful to me that you point out it wasn’t your fault after the fact, when you didn’t know whether it would be your fault or not at the time. That’s like a kid admitting he threw the kitchen knife at his sister but it didn’t hit her so everything is totally fine and the subject can be closed.
The fact remains that it’s patently stupid to vote for a 3rd party presidential candidate because we are NOWHERE NEAR a 3rd party winning a presidential election. I mean the 3rd party candidate with the most votes only got half of a single percentage of the total votes. And that was magician Jill Stein, who disappears into thin air for years at a time and magically reappears a couple months out from every election.
The question is what you’re looking at. If your primary concern is understanding why Kamala lost, then it is very relevant to point out the fact that we did not cost her the election. If your primary concern is establishing the moral standing of individual voters, then I suppose it’s less relevant.
To be perfectly clear, if we cost a candidate like Kamala the election, I would be perfectly fine with it. I wish that we did represent a larger contingent of the vote so that we had the power to deny a win to any candidate that doesn’t meet our demands. It would be preferable if our kitchen knife hit and we could claim credit for it. Unfortunately, your candidate lost for other reasons.
Of course, the only analysis liberals seem capable of is looking at the moral purity of individual voters. It is inconceivable to punch up and critique our rulers. The Democratic party can never fail, it can only be failed. This aversion to self-critique and reflection is itself part of why the Democrats failed, and why they will continue to fail.
How?
The Democrats insisted their candidate was good enough, but we weren’t on board? We said that, and got ignored, and the Dems lost
Nobody was denying that was an outcome, just that it was a daft one. That’s why they were trying to convince you it was daft. You could only say ‘Told you so’, if what they were saying wasn’t true.
It wouldn’t have changed the outcome regardless of how we voted or what we said. But the criticisms we were making weren’t just about our own values or preferences, they were things that would have allowed her to appeal to a much broader section of the population. It was not our willingness to criticize and take a stand that caused this, but the Democrats’ stubbornness and unwillingness to listen to criticism.
Ultimately, it just goes to show the necessity of building a better party from the ground up. The one thing Democrats are supposed to be good for is keeping Trump out, they’ve abandoned any pretence of actually helping people or not committing mass murder, and they can’t even do that. It’s a sinking ship.
It introduced apathy that could’ve changed the outcome. You’re not including all the people who didn’t vote.
There were no easy policies that would’ve led to victory. Doesn’t matter if the policies are objectively good or popular as she was up against a misinformation machine. She ran a near perfect campaign in the time she had. And Biden only came back initially because yous already voted Trump in once. You got exactly the government you deserve unfortunately.
Could’ve united and killed the republicans party. Locked Trump up. Shifted the Overton window back and gotten some leftists as the opposition but looks like you’ll need to do it the hard way.
Near perfect? Is that a joke?
She ran on the status quo which is absolutely not working for a ton of people. She campaigned with Dick Cheney, an immensely unpopular politician across the entire political spectrum responsible for a pointless war that killed countless people. She completely failed to adapt to a changing media environment with streamers and the like, which the Republicans took full advantage of. The messaging she did have was completely unfocused, the one moment she had of doing something right was calling Republicans weird, which she then dropped because of civility-brain. And that’s not even talking about Palestine!
What on earth did she do right strategically? Near perfect? I can hardly think of a single thing she didn’t screw up! And the result was, again, the worst electoral result since the Republicans took Cali. Absolutely insane thing to assert.
No, none of that could’ve happened. Leftist defectors were not a large enough contingent to have swung the election. Even if we were, and had fallen in line, it wouldn’t have done shit for the Overton window, it would’ve kept going right and shown the Democrats that there’s zero consequences for moving so far right that they’re actively committing genocide. This idiotic and self-defeating strategy of falling in line behind the lesser evil is what the left has been doing for generations and it’s how we got here in the first place.
Question for you: where do you think Trump came from? Do you think he’s just a random fluke, or were there root causes that allowed someone like him to become popular? Follow up, do you think that a problem can be addressed using the same approach that created the problem in the first place?
Y’all are completely conservative in your thinking, you’re just trying to cling to a past that is gone for good. If the Democratic party fails to adapt to changing conditions, then it will die, and the only question is how much wasted effort we put into it before we realize it’s a lost cause.
She wasn’t trying to win your vote. The population votes for the status quo. Deviation from that would’ve led to her loss. You weren’t going to get another Sanders in the time she had.
Has there been an American president who wasn’t contributing one way or another to a genocide? Idk why people act like that’s surprising. They’re all war criminals. There’s a difference between that and actively egging them to ramp it up while using ‘Palestinians’ as a slur.
The Cons would’ve felt the consequences, as Trumps crimes were laid bare over the subsequent years and the extent of their delusion publicly dissected. Embarrassment is one of the few things fascists understand.
This vacuum would’ve led to space for leftist voices to emerge.
No Trump was not a fluke, but you’d assume in the Information age someone so blatantly acting against your interests wouldn’t be your pick.
Dems aren’t ever going to solve anything either way. It’s just a nicer environment for the rest of us to try and do so.
Oh, well then, my congratulations to President Harris on winning the election.
No they fucking don’t vote for the status quo when the status quo is fucked. Trump at least postures that he’s different (even though he’s more of the same) which is why it’s hardly surprising that he won.
He wasn’t my pick.
And what does trying to do so look like? Would it, perhaps, involve forming an organization, say, a party, that actually represents the interests of the people?
I guess you prefer anti-democratic felon rapists over run-of-the-mill Democrats.
Thanks for being honest about it.
Which third party candidate is an anti-democratic felon rapist?
If you’re implying that I’m not voting for the Democrats and thereby supporting Trump, sleep well knowing I didn’t vote Blue in 2016 or 2020 either.
Right over your head.
I’m not implying. It’s a simple fact. One that you don’t appear to be capable of understanding.
But please, keep being a stable genius by voting for candidates that cannot, and will not, win until their parties do the work necessary to become viable, which they aren’t.
That shit makes you look real smart.
They only don’t win because people don’t vote for them. People would literally rather support a party that doesn’t align with their views. That’s the part going over your head.
Wow. They must be dumbfucks.