Harris to begin 'more aggressive' post-debate campaigning stage, campaign says
Harris to begin 'more aggressive' post-debate campaigning stage, campaign says
Vice President Kamala Harris's post-debate campaign visits to North Carolina and Pennsylvania to start of a "more aggressive" campaigning stage, her campaign said.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Not great, so people should continue to apply pressure.
Cool. Tell all your Democrat friends that they can have my vote when they start doing the bare minimum and embargo arms sales to Israel.
"I'm not going to help until you guys fix the problem for me"
"Those guys" are part of the problem, voting for them before they stop helping genocide the Palestinians does not incentivize them to stop being part of the problem.
We can do more than one thing at a time. It's absolutely possible to vote for Democrats to put them in a position to do the things we want while simultaneously pushing that same party to do those things.
Real change requires that we capture the Democratic party while strengthening it, not kneecaping it into submission. Primaries are where the real push happens. That's when it needs to be a drag out fight with the party. Not the general.
I only have one vote for the Presidential seat and it is entirely symbolic because I don't live in a swing state.
You say we need to capture the party, but I'm watching it be captured by "moderate" Republicans who suddenly seem very eager to endorse Harris.
This election didn't have a primary, so it sounds like there never was a chance for a "real push".
You say we need to capture the party, but I'm watching it be captured by "moderate" Republicans who suddenly seem very eager to endorse Harris.
Because a ton of people who are progressive sit out largely using the argument you've put forth. See the problem there?
This election didn't have a primary, so it sounds like there never was a chance for a "real push".
I mean primarying an incumbent president is incredibly difficult, I'm not going to disagree. But in our local primaries here in CO we were able to knock out 2 old guard dems and replace them with young progressives that will be on the ballot this fall. We're literally moving the party to the left. It's an absolute grind, but that's the only way this shit will work.
It's also exactly how the conservative crazies got ahold of the GOP, I'm not just spouting theory. They primaried the fuck out of members that didn't do what they want, especially at the local and state levels, and it has absolutely paid off for them. And that took at least 3 full election cycles if not more.
And it's backfiring, which is part of why the Democrats are going to win the presidency in this election.
We know the Democrats aren't going to do anything to stop Israel, so the only real question left is whether or not the Republican party will fracture after Trump loses again.
Don't forget Trump's threats. If you don't vote now, you may not get another chance for a while.
If there's only one option to "save democracy", then democracy is already dead.
Democracy is always one vote away from death. Sometimes there are just a lot more folks voting for a dangerous candidate.
You misunderstand, I'm trying to point out that a "Democracy" that offers only the illusion of choice is anything but.
There's nothing anti-democratic about having a "dangerous" option on the ballot, but if there's only one "safe" candidate then there is no real choice to be made and democracy is impossible.
I'm not dying on this hill. I encourage you to vote and help us gain a little distance from the failed state, however small.
My encouragement to you is to do more than just voting. It's necessary but insufficient on its own.
Cool. Tell all your Democrat friends that they can have my vote when they start doing the bare minimum and embargo arms sales to Israel.
i'll be sure to tell them that once i'm convinced you aren't a tankie trying to subvert the election.
I'm a single-issue anti-genocide voter. My political ideal is a mashup of Library Socialism and Anarchism. The election can't be subverted, it's already been decided that Harris is winning.
I'm not a single issue voter, and there's plenty I find worrisome with what Kamala said.
such as?
I’m a single-issue anti-genocide voter.
you are going to be deeply disappointed when any number of things happens. Notably when you discover that israel probably isn't just flagrantly committing genocide. When you discover other issues like climate change, and human rights abuse. Or like, nestle.
I can think of a few things that would spook you more than like 40,000 people dying. Notably the roughly 300,000 causalities in the russo-ukraine war that's still ongoing.
The election can’t be subverted, it’s already been decided that Harris is winning.
it most definitely can be, see: 2020 election and the jan 6 plot (a video covering the excessive extents of jan 6th, it's 3 hours long, and straight information)
there is already work being done to potentially subvert the will of the voters: see Georgia, i don't have to explain this one, the board committee thing overseeing elections is trying to usurp total control over the certification of the votes.
yes, harris is already winning that's how polling works. Unfortunately for you, polling is never perfectly accurate.
I like your root instance though. Real recognize real if you know what i mean.
you are going to be deeply disappointed
I have been nothing but deeply disappointed with American politics for the entirety of my adult life.
there is already work being done to potentially subvert the will of the voters
That's nothing new. More like par for the course with American elections.
What's different this time is how many "moderate" Republicans are endorsing the Democrats.
The Democratic Party is over, they're giving up on their left wing to chase anti-trump Republicans. After this election they might as well be the Democratic-Republicans ressurrected. One big neoliberal party with no real competition from the right or left.
Unfortunately for you, polling is never perfectly accurate.
-
Polling is accurate enough, everyone who was surprised that Trump took the presidency in 2016 was just insufficiently cynical about American politics.
-
I don't need polling to see which way the wind is blowing, this election has been a done deal since Pelosi convinced Biden to drop out of the race. That itself being an event I predicted as the longshot that the Democrats would need all the way back in 2015 when the DNC started openly conspiring against Bernie.
I like your root instance though.
fistbump
I have been nothing but deeply disappointed with American politics for the entirety of my adult life.
yeah, that's just politics, idk what you really expect it to do lol. It's not going to do your homework, and it isn't supposed to, it simply isn't made for that. Global geopolitics are even more complicated and the potential ramifications are even more significant so we can't even really begin to talk about those.
That’s nothing new. More like par for the course with American elections.
nothing new since 2020. And maybe 2016 with the russian interference, but that's been pretty typical and not really subversion of democracy.
Maybe the bush V gore election, but that's it really. Everything else has pretty much "worked as intended" except for that one apparent McCarthy plot but that never went anywhere.
What’s different this time is how many “moderate” Republicans are endorsing the Democrats.
they are moderate btw. That the reason they're supporting dems. Normally they would be swing voters, but given the nature of this election, you would expect some percent of the republican voter base to push more democratic.
The Democratic Party is over, they’re giving up on their left wing to chase anti-trump Republicans. After this election they might as well be the Democratic-Republicans ressurrected. One big neoliberal party with no real competition from the right or left.
i don't think the democratic party is over, i think you're just either being wildly over dramatic here, or simply wrong about how the democratic party works. There is a substantial difference in the parties, that i simply do not have time to cover in this comment. See this thread
but TL;DR is that the left wing is a lot more nebulous than the right wing, which can make it very flexible in how it functions, which is good for general party cohesion. Unlike the republican party (again, see the previously linked thread)
it also seems like, and this is adding to those previous thoughts, that the left party is generally moving away from "SJW ideals" things like CRT and social inequality, which are still important, but just not actively being pushed through in any sort of legislation or anything, as we're focusing more clearly on social aspects, things like abortion and queer rights, which are being targeted right now. But i think we will see a small shift going into the future with this as well, pushing more for "socially progressive ideals" rather than the previous "socially progressive governmental ideals" which i think are a bit iffy.
like to be clear, kamala is pushing hard for the independent moderate voter (which is at least 50% of the left party) and capturing a lot of the more moderate republican vote, which is going to be essential to the upcoming election strategy. It seems they think removing votes from republicans is probably going to be more valuable than insuring farther left voters (which are probably already voting for her anyway, since her ideals roughly align anyway) which on a few levels, makes a lot of sense. It also gives really strong social presence as well, just watch a rally that she's done.
Polling is accurate enough, everyone who was surprised that Trump took the presidency in 2016 was just insufficiently cynical about American politics.
polling is really hard normally, and it's even harder when talking about elections, because more often than not, elections are won by one or two percentage points. Polling has a margin of error of probably about < 5% which is going to make that pretty random by nature. This is also ignoring reliable data collection as well.
I don’t need polling to see which way the wind is blowing, this election has been a done deal since Pelosi convinced Biden to drop out of the race. That itself being an event I predicted as the longshot that the Democrats would need all the way back in 2015 when the DNC started openly conspiring against Bernie.
that's a possibility, but i feel like that probably veers into the usual conspiratorial areas of things. As far as the polling and public sentiment goes, getting rid of biden probably saved this cycle. It's certainly really stressed the republicans a lot, and will continue to do so even more in the future. I feel like bernie probably just wasn't popular enough to win, certainly a beloved candidate, but idk if people would've genuinely voted him in. Maybe if he was the primary candidate, but they obviously didn't pick him, to whatever consequence that had.
I like your root instance though.
fistbump
hell yeah brother!
yeah, that's just politics, idk what you really expect it to do lol.
Right? I guess I'm just a cynical old anarcho-commie but American politics has always felt like one step forward and two steps back.
What’s different this time is how many “moderate” Republicans are endorsing the Democrats.
they are moderate btw. That the reason they're supporting dems.
They were never moderate, that's why they were Republicans in the first place. The only reason they're supporting Dems now is because the Dems have stopped pretending to be left-wing and openly embraced their status as America's non-wingnut Capitalist party.
i don't think the democratic party is over, i think you're just either being wildly over dramatic here, or simply wrong about how the democratic party works.
Dramatic, sure, but I don't think it's overly so. The party no longer needs to appeal to the interests of us small folks now that business interests are starting to abandon the Republican project. Working within the system to enact meaningful change was already nigh-impossible, but now that the Democrats have an unassailable electoral position there's no reason for them not to become complacent and allow themselves to be influenced by lobbyists even more than before.
I feel like bernie probably just wasn't popular enough to win, certainly a beloved candidate, but idk if people would've genuinely voted him in. Maybe if he was the primary candidate, but they obviously didn't pick him, to whatever consequence that had.
If the Democrats had put their weight behind Bernie then 2016 wouldn't even have been a contest. He was literally the single most popular politician in America at the time and Clinton was close to the opposite, but the DNC decided it was "Her Turn" and arranged the rest of the competition to drop out and endorse Clinton ahead of the Super Tuesday primaries. Between that and the superdelegates there was no way for the best candidate to win.
They also promoted Trump under the assumption that he'd be an easy opponent for her. XD
Right? I guess I’m just a cynical old anarcho-commie but American politics has always felt like one step forward and two steps back.
i think it's probably more like 1.1 steps forward, and 1 steps back, slow continual progress seems to be the ultimate goal of the governmental structure.
They were never moderate, that’s why they were Republicans in the first place. The only reason they’re supporting Dems now is because the Dems have stopped pretending to be left-wing and openly embraced their status as America’s non-wingnut Capitalist party.
well yeah, traditionally they would be moderate/institutional republicans but history is not accurate when applied to the modern day, so right now, a modern republican is going to appreciate kamala more than trump right now.
the left historically has been broadly moderate, a somewhat significant voter populous will swing more progressive, but it's a lot less "aggressive" than on the republican side. I think the turnout at kamala rallies has been a really good example of this. I think most democrats are "socially progressive" governmentally "liberal" and economically "liberal/progressive" but that's just what i've gleaned. Very few democrats are "socialist" or "communist" and even fewer subscribe to anarchism. Even i a technically anarchist individual, doesn't even "believe" in anarchism. I think anarchism is a transitional government structure. I think it's a more of a communal structure more than anything, and that's where i find value in it.
Dramatic, sure, but I don’t think it’s overly so. The party no longer needs to appeal to the interests of us small folks now that business interests are starting to abandon the Republican project. Working within the system to enact meaningful change was already nigh-impossible, but now that the Democrats have an unassailable electoral position there’s no reason for them not to become complacent and allow themselves to be influenced by lobbyists even more than before.
you might be correct, but that would be a very long term game, 10-20 years. So it's hard to say right now, but you might very well be correct on that one. I think this is mostly a response to the republican base, and i think we're going to see a "new left" in the coming election cycles, hinging on more traditional values, but pushing for more progressive things. I think if we see this, the democratic party is going to be highly successful.
If the Democrats had put their weight behind Bernie then 2016 wouldn’t even have been a contest. He was literally the single most popular politician in America at the time and Clinton was close to the opposite, but the DNC decided it was “Her Turn” and arranged the rest of the competition to drop out and endorse Clinton ahead of the Super Tuesday primaries. Between that and the superdelegates there was no way for the best candidate to win.
idk much about the 2016 election and popular opinion so i can't say much about that, but in 2020 if that were to have happened, i think that probably would've happened as well. The party institution has a very large voting influence, whoever is run as the primary, is going to get the majority of part votes, unfortunately.
I think the primary issue with the 2016 election was the common public sentiment of trump, he was the under dog, i guess nobody though people voted for republicans or something lol. Thankfully i think this was the "old left" and i'm hoping we get a "new left" starting with the current harris ticket. I think if we do have a new left, we will be very productive.
They also promoted Trump under the assumption that he’d be an easy opponent for her. XD
skill issue no. 1 pretty much lmao.
you might be correct, but that would be a very long term game, 10-20 years.
Yeah, well, my weirdness continues. I've got that ADHD time-blindness pretty damn hard, so future events which are inevitable might as well have already occurred in my perspective.
i think we're going to see a "new left" in the coming election cycles
That's my prediction as well. Now that the Democrats are the new right-wing, the obvious competition would be a new left-wing party. It probably won't be one of the existing "left" parties though, as they are almost all thoroughly captured by either foreign interests, state security agencies, or both.
Yeah, well, my weirdness continues. I’ve got that ADHD time-blindness pretty damn hard, so future events which are inevitable might as well have already occurred in my perspective.
gotta love time travel, i mea-
That’s my prediction as well. Now that the Democrats are the new right-wing, the obvious competition would be a new left-wing party. It probably won’t be one of the existing “left” parties though, as they are almost all thoroughly captured by either foreign interests, state security agencies, or both.
idk that they're the "new right" like i said i expect them to use moderate language, but then push for more progressive policy. It seems like a really successful strategy. Shit like "we don't want the government involved in peoples healthcare" implies to me that it will be across the board, not only for abortion, but also shit like gender affirming healthcare. And that we will probably see similar things in schools as well.
Though im pretty sure the "far left" will probably splinter a bit more aggressively over this, i'm not sure how much that will do anything, or even matter, we'll have to see.
it's also possible that if/once trumps dies/drops out, that the republican party has to scramble to be normal again, and they either pick up a new normal (probably more moderate, otherwise they probably won't win) pushing the dems further to the left, though im hoping some of that newer rhetoric stays put, just more progressive in general.
It'll be interesting to watch.
-
Nah, you aren't worth mentioning.