this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
423 points (82.9% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
165 readers
328 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' etc.
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Trump won both times because he departed from GOP ideology, not his voters. Harm reduction doesn't get voters to the polls.
This isn't about you and me. A campaign centered around "stop this person" is just less effective than one centered around "let's start doing this".
Just saying this is a hypothetical reality. As you say, it doesn't get people to the polls.
What it means is folks have to live with a FURTHER candidate because they aren't smart enough to serve their own interests and take the NEARER candidate.
The difference is that expecting the candidate to change was a realistic expectation, while expecting the voters to change was not.
I disagree, especially on Israel. Change would mean deviation from the official position. Imo it is a weakness with running a candidate who is already in the Whitehouse. They can't just say things, weather or not they want to, if that will have strategic/military implications. An outside candidate is free to say whatever. (To be clear, I don't believe Harris wanted to deviate much)
Lastly, I think my whole point is I'm not expecting anything from anyone, I'm observing how voter's inability to accept a good not great candidate results in a much worse candidate, so inaction results in a even less satisfying outcome.