594
'Very troubling': Leader of 'Abandon Harris' movement now anxious about Trump appointees
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2024
594 points (95.6% liked)
politics
19268 readers
1697 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's weird people are blaming the ones who didn't vote...
Obviously, if they voted trump, blame them away.
But it's like people don't realize how big of an ask it was to have people to vote for a genocide, especially when it's against the country someone came from and their family is still there.
If Kamala would have won, trying to criticize her would have worked as well as criticizing Biden on Israel the last four years. Any criticism would be met with "Trump would be worse".
With trump in charge, people will (rightfully) call out American support of a genocide as wrong. So while trump will undoubtedly make shit worse. Him being president means the Dem party will criticize him, and be more left in 2028.
If Kamala had won, she and the party would have moved more to the right in 2028. Just look at what happened after 4 years as VP. The few parts of her 2020 platform people liked, she moved to the right on.
The genocide of Palestinians didn't start two years ago, it's been going on for 70 years. It makes sense they're thinking long term rather than only focuses on the "now" and voting for a lesser evil that maintains the status quo that is a genocide.
If you want someone to blame, it seems like the blame should be on the "left" candidate that ignored everyone actually on the left and became bff's with Liz Cheney. Not the people that understand when a Republican wins, we get a primary which even when the party pick wins, the primary pulls them left. Even if it's just lies to win the primary, as long as they keep the lies up, it helps in the general because voters want Dems to move left.
Without a primary, the chosen candidate takes the left for granted and moved right. In this case if Kamala won, we wouldn't have another option in 2028 either, it would be 2032 before the next real primary.
Like...
I just don't see how someone could blame anyone except the candidate, her campaign team, and the DNC.
They're the ones that prevented a real primary, and that made the campaign platform that alienated lifelong Dem voters in hopes of gaining republican voters who wouldn't be caught dead voting for a Dem.
It obviously failed, and the media is desperate to blame anything other than the stuff their billionaire owners bribed the Dems to support.
They'll never ever say the problem was a Dem is too "fiscally conservative" because they're the ones paying neoli eral candidates to pretend that's a good move for the average American
I don't think people are really thinking long term, i don't think there's any strategy like that at play. (This is kind of accelerationist anyway, even if it were.) However, i think people who blame the voters for refusing to vote for an obviously poisonous candidate are completely delusional.
People do not have a duty to vote for the Democratic Party's chosen candidate, no matter who it is. Not moral and not otherwise. The candidate has a duty to appeal to the voters. The party has a duty to put forward candidates that can get elected. If they refuse to do that and the voters refuse to vote for them, that's not on the voters.
It 100% is, and to be clear I don't think it was the best path, which is why I held my nose like I have for a very long time and voted D.
But it's the path we're on now.
When a Dem wins, they appoint the DNC chair and a symbolic vote confirms it.
When the Dem loses, the chair usually resigns and the DNC has a chance to change direction.
If Kamala had won 2024, the party would stay the same. If she then won 2028 as an incumbent with no primary, shed get to pick chair again. Then in 2032 they would influence the primary to get a similar candidate. It's a feedback loop that only has a chance to break when a Republican takes office.
Literally, the only way the DNC has a chance to change direction is when the Republicans win. You gotta look at the silver lining, DNC leadership change was accelerated. Which hopefully will be a good thing long term because DNC leadership for decades has been absolute dog shit.
Or they double down and we're probably fucked. But don't give up. There's still the potential of a fair primary in 2028 regardless.
Like Heinlein said long ago: