spujb

how many right wing voters on the fence did she win with her own strategy? go ahead and look that up :)

It boils down to “does moving to the central position gain more voters in the end or not?”

I certainly don’t think it has to boil down to that. Your question is valid but there are plenty of other questions you could derive. One I like might be: “Does ignoring the voice of your voter base increase apathy or not?” or “How does apathy caused by unquestioning support for genocide interact with other alienations caused by democrats courting conservatives?” or really poignantly “Might not the ‘left’ adopting conservative framing and policies simply reaffirm conservative leaning swing voters in their decision to vote Republican?”

you’re absolutely correct in what ur saying but missing the point. the post isn’t trying to argue that the election could have been won by promising withholding weapons, it’s pointing out that it literally couldn’t hurt, and still didn’t happen.

the security that could have come from simply saying the words “no more weapons if we win” was essentially free for the taking, and yet biden-harris eschewed that opportunity in favor of courting conservatives—in a huge middle finger to pro-Palestinians. the post is about listening, or rather the lackthereof, to one’s voterbase.

again i appreciate your insight into the election dynamics but it’s just not the point here so i hope this clarifies. ❤️

Late but here’s my model of the situation. Sort of a WIP and very new but a /gen effortpost, so I welcome thoughts:

It’s individualism versus collectivism. The collectivist understands intimately the function of working together for the protection and future of the group. There is no doubt in her mind about the practical nature of her actions because she can see them play out in her community. The individualist, by contrast, operates solo; everything for him is about your vote, your candidate. This leads to a divide between the individualist and the material outcomes of his actions. This gap—this absence of practicality, we might call it—leaves a vacuum where symbolism can enter. This becomes a problem not when symbolism is simply encountered by the individualist, but when the symbol becomes the act, when the vote becomes a kind of personal expression, and any thought for collective consequences falls by the wayside.

“Ordinarily,” if we imagine such a thing exists, these two identities intermix and act in a complex and altogether non-problematic way; I don’t wish to imply that individualism is simply “bad” while collective action is “good.” For example, concepts of individualism are fundamental to advancing human rights to consent and bodily autonomy.

However, the setting and background of your question is the USA, a country with deep, deep historical ties to white supremacist, capitalist, colonialist, even fascist values, all of which hold the individual as intrinsic over the collective. The result is that hyperindividualism is catastrophically rooted in the heart of U.S. society—even in progressive and leftist spaces!

So, when you see a pro-Palestinian proclaim abstention or that they voted third party, you are witnessing the complex outcome of genuine compassion intermingled with the values instilled by white supremacy and individualism. And so you hear the phrase, “I just can’t in good conscience vote for XYZ.” To degrees varying between people, the vote loses its material value and becomes nothing more than a symbolic moral statement.

This doesn’t mean the leftist non-voter is a white supremacist, of course! Rather, it’s that they have been deeply affected by the presence of those values in their cultural context and have not yet had the opportunity or experience with group frameworks to question their assumptions and reassert the significant importance of collectivism.

So, in conclusion, the unnuanced TLDR is “because America is a racist capitalist hellhole.” The good news I conclude from this, though, is that collectivism can be learned and promoted. Cultural values are definitely not static, and perhaps with education, support, and time, mindsets among leftists can be shifted to better support the whole of the community.

OP asked for a steelman but good try

sorry my mouth isn’t big enough for all the words you are stuffing in there :)

well put. election has been emotionally traumatic for many, but that’s never going to make me hold biden-harris blameless for their relentless tacking right in the past four-eight years. people in the comments section want me to throw up my hands and say “ah well she did her best” and thats just… remarkably unfair.

hold your leaders accountable, folks. fuck trump. but also fuck adopting trump’s own conservative values in failed attempts to win over his constituents. dems WILL NOT do better unless you MAKE them.

i think you lost the plot of the thread. post was simply about the party ignoring the communicated values of the electorate. you’re getting off on some other thing.

lots of emotions, so i understand your need to react with vigorous opposition but you’re simply talking to a made up idea of me rather than what im actually saying and communicating. have a good one :)

we love a good cherry pick :) be sure to check out the pro-genocide pollsters for the real data

weird and confusing comment? maybe missing the point which is that harris got “some letters and phonecalls” (a lot of them!) and fucking ignored them for the entire campaign. biden-harris are the imbeciles here. hope this clarifies :)

YouGov, August this year

Methodology: IMEU Policy Project and YouGov’s survey was conducted July 25-Aug. 9. 387 voters were surveyed in Arizona, with a margin of error of 5.7%. 374 voters were surveyed in Georgia, with a margin of error of 5.4%. 369 voters were surveyed in Pennsylvania, with a margin of error of 5.3%.

we did not luck out and the plan was not “biden bad.”

the plan was “biden is increasingly showing age and is actively losing an election that should be easy to win. polling shows that any other generic nominee does better than joseph robinette biden, so the logical next step is to replace him with his vice president.”

the trouble is we said that, and you didn’t listen. i was actively scoffed at and called a nazi for saying the above. poll data that showed proof of the above was downvoted and called manipulation. even when the donors started stepping down, it was still called fraudulent and irrelevant. i never hand waved someone asking me who replaces biden, and i always responded harris especially as the time got later. and again i was downvoted and scoffed at for that.

this was not luck, and you should start actively listening to people you disagree with more because you display some saddening signs of intentional ignorance here.