• pjwestin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    Cool story, bro. Do you think that the twelve million fewer people who voted for Harris were all Lemmy Marxist? Or maybe they were just people who didn’t like her total lack of a working class message, endorsement of the Gaza genocide, or attempts to woo, “moderate,” conservatives instead of her base.

    The Democrats thought that they could ignore leftists and focus on moderates, gambling on the looming fascism being enough to get the left to show up anyway to bail them out. Turns out that was a bad fucking bet, and they created a huge enthusiasm gap that cost them the election. Maybe try blaming the party that spent $1.6 billion on this shit strategy than a handful of protest votes.

    Edit: For the record, Pug’s edit is a lie. Pug’s argument is, “You’re saying progressives let fascism win because they didn’t like Harris, and she wouldn’t pander to them.” To which I keep replying, “No, I’m saying campaigns don’t have good turnout with groups they don’t campaign for, and Harris chose to campaign for moderates, not progressives.” To which Pug keeps replying, “So you agree with me!” Also, he calls me an apologist for fascist enablers a few times.

    Obviously, we’re not saying the same thing. His framing is an attempt to blame leftist groups for the Harris loss, while mine places the blame squarely on the decisions of the Harris campaign (since getting votes was literally their whole job). You’re welcome to go through the thread and make up your own minds, but it’s probably not worth your time to read the whole thing. It certainly wasn’t worth mine to write it.

    • leadore@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      16 days ago

      “12 million fewer people who voted for Harris”?!?

      Um, no… Trump won by (vote counts as of today Dec 3) 2,424,153 votes. I don’t know where you get the idea that Harris lost by 12 million! At first I thought maybe it was a typo but you’ve repeated that number in other posts. Don’t just make shit up if you want your arguments to be taken seriously.

      https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/RESULTS/zjpqnemxwvx/president/

        • leadore@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          16 days ago

          OK, so if you are comparing those numbers, the answer is 81.2m for Biden in 2020 - 74.7m for Harris in 2024, which is 6.5 million votes fewer, not 12 million.

          You were citing only her votes counted in the first 24 hours or so compared to Biden’s total after all votes counted.

            • leadore@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              16 days ago

              If you looked at the argument they’re having, it’s about how much of a difference leftists made in the election by refusing to vote for her, so the number is relevant for the points they were making. OTOH my point was that, it doesn’t matter how many votes each candidate got in 2020 compared to 2024. What mattered was how many votes each one got in 2024, where the difference was 2.4 million (1.6%).

    • PugJesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      Cool story, bro. Do you think that the twelve million fewer people who voted for Harris were all Lemmy Marxist?

      Funny that so many centrists have a strategy that boils down down to, “ignore leftists and then complain when they don’t vote for us.”

      This you?

      Or maybe they were just people who didn’t like her total lack of a working class message, endorsement of the Gaza genocide, or attempts to woo, “moderate,” conservatives instead of her base.

      The Democrats thought that they could ignore leftists and focus on moderates, gambling on the looming fascism being enough to get the left to show up anyway to bail them out. Turns out that was a bad fucking bet, and they created a huge enthusiasm gap that cost them the election. Maybe try blaming the party that spent $1.6 billion on this shit strategy than a handful of protest votes.

      God, it’s so predictable that you lot invariably engage in kettle logic on the subject.

      Which is it? Was the leftist vote insignificant and cannot possibly be blamed for letting the country fall into fascism; or was the lack of the left vote what crashed the Dem candidate and thus why all policy decisions should be handed over to the morons who preferred fascism to liberals the all-important voting bloc?

      Any other fascist apologia you feel the urge to engage in here, or are we done?

      • pjwestin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        Oh wow, great point!, Pug! What a brilliant fucking comment! Except I’m talking about progressives in general, while you’re bitching about a few hundred, “red facists,” on an obscure website.

        Most of those 12 million (apparently 6.5 million less than Biden, when the counting was done) were working class folks that wanted to hear a progressive message about how the government was actually gonna do something to help them, and everytime I see your account, you’re bitching about a handful of obstinate communists. After seeing you do it so many times, it really just seems like you’re looking for an excuse to punch left.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          16 days ago

          Oh wow, great point!, Pug! What a brilliant fucking comment! Except I’m talking about progressives in general, while you’re bitching about a few hundred, “red facists,” on an obscure website.

          So your argument is, then, that progressives decided that fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal? As a progressive, I doubt that.

          Most of those 12 million were working class folks that wanted to hear a progressive message about how the government was actually gonna do something to help them,

          What a convenient and totally unsupported claim.

          and everytime I see your account, you’re bitching about a handful of obstinate communists. After seeing you do it so many times, it really just seems like you’re looking for an excuse to punch left.

          “Why is PugJesus complaining about people on Lemmy while he’s on Lemmy??? Especially here, under a post about the kind of idiots who blame liberals for everything even as they hand them loss after loss??? I just don’t understand”

          Keep mulling over it, maybe you’ll figure it out. Eventually.

          • pjwestin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            16 days ago

            So your argument is, then, that progressives decided that fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal?

            No, it’s that centrists decided that losing to facism was preferable to winning with progressivism.

            As a progressive, I doubt that.

            As a progressive, I doubt that.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              16 days ago

              No, it’s that centrists decided that losing to facism was preferable to winning with progressivism.

              Your argument is that progressives chose to sit out and not vote over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism, because the Dem wasn’t progressive enough for them.

              Please, inform me as to how that argument implies something other than “progressives decided that fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal”

              As a progressive, I doubt that.

              Of course, no one who is threatened by the approach of literal fucking fascism in this country is a TRUE progressive.

              • pjwestin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                16 days ago

                Your argument is that progressives chose to sit out and not vote over voting for a corporate Dem against fascism, because the Dem wasn’t progressive enough for them.

                No, it’s that it created an insurmountable enthusiasm gap. I thought that was clear because those were the words I used, but I guess not. Democrats thought they could just keep talking about project 2025 and it would be motivating enough for people to go out and vote for a candidate and platform they didn’t care about. As I said, that was a bad fucking bet.

                Of course, no one who is threatened by the approach of literal fucking fascism in this country is a TRUE progressive.

                No, but someone who exclusively punches left doesn’t strike me as being particularly left.

                • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  16 days ago

                  No, it’s that it created an insurmountable enthusiasm gap.

                  Yes, you’re saying progressives stayed home because voting for a moderate Dem against fascism wasn’t EXCITING enough for them.

                  So literally what I accused you of saying, thanks for agreeing with me.

                  No, but someone who exclusively punches left doesn’t strike me as being particularly left.

                  I’m sorry, I’ll stop attacking the people who, like you, are making apologia for letting fascism take over one of the most powerful countries in the world because they weren’t ‘enthused’ enough.

                  I’ll be sure to be properly contrite for shaming you when I’m in line for the death camps.

                  • pjwestin@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    16 days ago

                    Yes, you’re saying progressives stayed home because voting for a moderate Dem against fascism wasn’t EXCITING enough for them.

                    I’m saying that candidates that don’t generate enthusiasm don’t win. For someone who’s constantly pontificating like they’re the only one in the world that understands realpolitik, that seems to be a real blind spot for you.

                    I’m sorry, I’ll stop attacking the people who, like you, are making apologia for letting fascism take over one of the most powerful countries in the world because they weren’t ‘enthused’ enough.

                    Buddy, that’s you. You’re the one looking for anyone to blame other than the party that blew $1.6 billion on their worst defeat since 2004.