• Glytch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 month ago

    Orange man bad was more then enough to pick a rock with a smiley face on it as alternative

    It’s a logical argument and it’s a correct argument. Unfortunately it’s demonstrably not an effective argument, especially when it’s all you’re doing. The same thing happened in 2016 with Clinton thinking she was owed votes because Trump would be (and was, and will be again) a disaster for the US. Yet they still went with the same strategy anyway.

    I say this as someone who did make the “correct” choice of voting blue despite my moral objections to a lot of what she was saying. We will now all see the consequences of only barely trying to win an election against fascists.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I am aligned with you here. Well put.

      To be clear, I have no love for the dnc or their strategies. I am not championing them as a model. Other commenters seem to think I’m simping for “blue maga” or some other shit.

      I’ve consistently argued for harm reduction in a limited outcome system.

      • Glytch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        I agree with the harm reduction strategy, but I also understand people being apathetic with the choices they’re presented.

        Of course this means people should be more active and now is the time to start really pushing for ranked choice voting so we can maybe do something about the dominance of the two-party system.

        Screw trying to convince Democrats they need to start looking left. Force them to with the threat of new, actually progressive, parties.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Bro you do words real good. Your closing statement is gold.

          Edit to be clear: I strongly agree with their comment I just wrote it silly.

          Imo that work to build candidates start right now, and to circle back my issue with third party voices, they are crickets until right before he election

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s a logical argument and it’s a correct argument. Unfortunately it’s demonstrably not an effective argument.

      The logical summation I derive from this statement is: Blame the voters, as they committed a stupid and illogical act.

      The only reasonable explanation for 2016 is that most people assumed Trump had no chance. There is no reasonable explanation for 2024.

      • Glytch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        I can see how you’d arrive at that conclusion (mostly by ignoring everything else I said), but my point was really that Harris needed a better argument than just that. She never gave people a reason to vote for her rather than just against Trump. That caused 14 million people who previously voted Democrat to stay home.

        To a lot of apathetic people we were presented with 2 very similar choices neither of whom gives a shit about the working class. So a lot of people figured “why bother?” and I don’t blame them for that. I blame Democrats for abandoning the working class and catering to corporate donors and conservatives. That’s not even mentioning doing nothing to stem the flow of genocide supplies to Israel (which caused a lot of Muslim voters to stay home).

        So sure, you can blame voters, but it makes more sense to blame the campaign that wasn’t even trying to win.