Tinidril @ Tinidril @midwest.social

Posts

0

Comments

1,399

Joined

2 yr. ago

Lemmings do determine DNC policy. We determined policy when we nominated Biden in 2020. I want to make sure the lemmings don't do the same kind of thing in 2028.

The "both sides" thing is generally idiotic, but Gaza is not the ground I would choose to make that argument. Biden was arguably worse on Gaza, even as he pretended to give a shit about Palestinians. You do know it came out that all that pressure he said he was putting on Netanyahu was bullshit, right?

Third parties weren't even a factor in this election. Harris would have needed almost every single third party vote (including the libertarians) to win the popular vote, and that wouldn't have gotten her the electoral college.

It's time for the lemmings to call the establishment to account. This is the time when we prepare for 2028, and we need to do everything we can to destroy the people driving the party into the ground. The people who backed Cuomo in New York are not going to save us.

Who said I didn't vote? I did vote. I voted for Harris, and she failed us. I was ready to get on the Kamala train, then watched day by day as she threw the election away.

Gosh, with your attitude I just don't get why Democrats don't attract more voters.

Yeah, just look at that idiot in charge. Don't think about the idiots who lost an election to him.

What guard did we try to change? It was still Pelosi, Schumer, and Kamala Harris who literally ran on not changing anything from the Biden administration. There was no changing of the guard, and yeah, look what happened. Harris ran the perfect establishment campaign, we lost, and the establishment learned nothing.

I voted for Harris. She let us down, not the other way around. Fuck letting them do it again. Even if they got elected, they aren't up to governing this nation as it is now. They don't have the backbone, the imagination, or the leadership to fix what they allowed Trump to do in this country.

Republicans inspire anger and lead people to hate. Democrats inspire nothing and lead people nowhere. Then Democrats are surprised when they can't win because people are angry and hateful. They drove the party and this country into the ground.

Have we met? What the fuck are you talking about about? Providing weapons and international support for an active genocide is not a great campaign strategy. You don't win elections by claiming to kill less children than the other guy. No matter how true it might be, it's not exactly going to lift grass roots enthusiasm.

The Democrats let the party deteriorate to the point that Trump successfully ran as the peace candidate, and the workers' candidate. It's fucking pathetic that they just let him run away with that, but how do you counter it while supporting a genocide?

I'm not whining, and I'm not living with it. I'm recognizing that the Democratic establishment is the first enemy that must be defeated before we have a chance to beat the Republicans. Until we have a changing of the guard, the gates will always be insecure.

Oh, drop this shit already. When the Democrats run one shit candidate after another they are going to lose sometimes. Learn to live with it, or get them to offer better candidates. All this whining is getting pathetic.

That group is infuriating. The worst are the ones that drag Democratic primaries to the right, then vote Republican anyways.

Cuomo was projected to be ahead after the first round. The election was going to be a question of whether or not Mamdani's certain gains in subsequent rounds would be enough to catch up. Mamdani being so far ahead after the first round meant Cuomo was done.

The people you are talking about about will never remove their cranial bowel obstructions, but their twisted forms can be removed from the Democratic party by voters.

but to keep the brown natural-born citizens who voted for him from realizing

Um, what? He has better support from wealthy whites than from racial minorities.

You are way understating his odds at winning the general.

Your implicit argument that so-called "centrist" Democrats are better at winning purple states because voters all exist along a simple left to right spectrum is absolutely wrong. The people in this country are fed up and they want revolution. Republicans offered it, and Democrats didn't. The rightward lurch was just an artifact of people rationalizing their vote and conforming to the stereotype on offer.

One big excuse the Democratic establishment gave was that the world is in an anti-incombancy mood. That's a correct observation, but what is really happening is the death of neoliberalism everywhere. The one big outlier to the trend was Mexico where an aging male President successfully handed the reigns over to his protege, a younger woman. The difference is, they were progressives. Mexico is also arguably a more religiously conservative country than America.

The wonky framing of the US electorate has been the standard Democratic perspective for decades. It's what led to the income inequality we have now. It's what led to Trump, and the complete routing of Democrats in both federal and state governments. For the love of God, wake up already.

The Democrats don't win because they aren't real people, they are characters on TV that people are sick of. Neoliberalism drains the blood and passion that people want to see in leadership. Republicans have it, and Democrats don't. It's past time that changed.

I'll bet fewer people will fall for Trump's lies than fell for GWB's, but not because we learned from Iraq. This war is really unpopular with MAGA. It's for the wrong reasons, but I don't think most will flip to Trump on this one.

Democrats might be interesting to watch. They are mostly cucked to Israel, but they won't want to pass on the opportunity to snipe at Trump.

That's just silly. Crazy wrong.

"The era of big government is over". Ronald Reagan? No, Bill Clinton, right before screwing over unions and rolling back the federal safety net more than any Republican until perhaps Trump. Obama was Wall Street's bitch from the start and coopted a left wing push for healthcare reform to push a right wing healthcare plan. Both Clinton and Obama took in millions from Wall Street immediately upon leaving office.

So that contradicts your first statement.

Oh, come on. Oh, fuck off. "Never" was obviously hyperbole, and accurate enough if you have to go back to 1945 for a counter example. It's arguably not even the same party since there aren't even any members serving today that we're serving back then.

You're ignoring the inherent contradiction by claiming what's "wanted" was and is never supported.

The first wall of resistance the left runs into on almost every issue is the Democratic establishment (here after just Democrats). The only way the left has moved the Democrats on anything is to first subvert them and build an irresistible tide of public support, and the Democrats form the chief resistance we always have to overcome. Democrats were late to the party on slavery, lgbt rights, labor rights, labor friendly trade policy, monetary policy, welfare, and taxation. They have currently caved entirely to right wing framing on immigration, trans rights, and law enforcement. If you think I can't back every one of those statements up, you are wrong.

That's a lot already - it's not an impenetrable fortress of unknowable things.

You missed my point entirely. We don't need to dig up secrets to show Trump's criminality. There is more than enough public information available to hang him up in the public square already. The Russia stuff blends a lot of reality with a lot of complete bullshit so that has become politically toxic, but just in the conduct of his administration alone there are countless undeniable crimes. We don't need more, we need the political power to impeach and prosecute.

And Kamala and Walz wouldn't support this publicly but I have no doubt they'd find any uncovered truths valuable.

Valuable for what? Calling a redo? That isn't going to happen. Be honest with yourself and admit that you are harboring that fantasy. You know it isn't real, but you just can't let go.

To be clear, I have no problem with actual investigation, but that sure doesn't appear to be what this group is doing. Nothing about this effort is convincing or interesting in the slightest.

Yeah I know, every leftist wants to see the Democrats collapse because they can’t wish the same on the republiQans.

You got it backwards. Leftists want the Democrats to abandon neoliberalism so that they won't collapse. There is a fringe (not me) that wants the Democrats to collapse in favor of a third party, but they also want to destroy the Republicans.

IF there’s anything to this, it means the Democrats won, though and leftists would get a lot of what they want.

We never have before, and the Democrats don't campaign on it, so I highly doubt it. Most Democratic administrations result in less of what Leftists want, not more. Not as bad as Republican administrations, but the last President to really move the country left was FDR. Biden did too, but he barely even tried to undo the previous Trump administration.

To be clear, Democrats are far better than Republicans for the left, but it's not because we expect to get any of what we want from either.

Of course that’s a big, if interesting, if.

Kinda like "if monkeys come flying out of my ass". Even so, it's hardly all that interesting. We still won't understand how Trump won in 2016. We still won't understand the rising tide of fascism in the US and the rest of the neoliberal world. We'll be no closer to taking back Congress in 2026, or doing anything with our proof of election fraud without it.

At the absolute best this would prove that Trump is a criminal running a criminal administration who should be removed from office. We can already prove that a dozen different ways, yet there he still is. I'm not "interested" in expending time, resources, or political capital on a witch-hunt that even Kamala and Walz don't find valuable.

Then we're back to my original objection to the first charts. In a time of strong anti-establishment sentiment, an establishment candidate is more likely to underperform down ballot races, and an anti-establishment candidate is more likely to outperform down ballot races - especially in a purple/swing state.

Which also brings me back to my original point that this is not a theory of interest to leftist voters - both because we already know why it happened, and because it provides cover for neoliberals trying to hide from the utter collapse of their ideology.

The press doesn't know how to differentiate between extremist neoliberals and the far left, so the far left gets saddled with extremist neoliberal nonsense.

We elected Biden on mostly anti-Trump sentiment then forgot and elected Trump again 4 years later. I think 20 years is more than enough time.

I don't know why you gave me the Wikipedia link, but the other link has exactly what I just said. This is straight from what you (and previously I) linked to:

Six percent of early voting was done via a ballot drop box.

In any case, 18% wouldn't change anything I said. With that, I'm done doing silly analysis just to show that there is no point in us doing silly analysis.

Brain fart. Drop-off was 6%. The link I already shared has that.

And yes drop-off, or mail-in ballot versus voting-at-the-polling-station votes.

The key says "total vote" not polling-station votes, but sure.

I read it like: 10 drop off votes vs 10 polling station votes = 0% difference.

Total in-person votes amounted to about 6% of the total vote. All of the numbers should be massively negative by your interpretation. If you lump mail-in and drop-off votes together, then you get just under a million votes compared to 1.5 million drop-off votes. The results of your interpretation should still skew mostly negative, but the chart is mostly positive. You have made assumptions about the charts that are not in the description and that make the chart obviously wrong.

Again I say, the whole thing is a mess, which makes me think that they don’t really want people to understand it.

We’ll just have to disagree on that then. I’m not saying I’m an expert, I’m saying the known vote counts in the following examples are all we need to know to warrant a further look:

Well, the fact that we had an election warrants a further look. I'm just saying that it should be looked at by people who won't make obvious mistakes like you just did. At some point we play a role

Those numbers would not be esoteric symbol-strewn formulas, they’d be, like “5%”.

Tell me you know nothing about statistical modeling without telling me you know nothing about statistical modeling. If you were to take any large random list of numbers, you could find all sorts of patterns that aren't there. Any experience at large statistics at all would have red flags flying any time someone picks out a very particular view when presenting data - especially if they obscure how exactly that view was obtained. Why 2016 and not 2020 or 2012? Why only Ohio? Why present the data this way and not some other way? Why make the key so confusing?

I'm not saying that there isn't something here, but the information this organization is presenting doesn't support that conclusion at all. If anything, it calls attention to how much obfuscation it takes to even make the case.

There’s also this graphic which is interesting.

I don't find that graph very interesting at all. First it's kind of annoying that they don't say what they mean by drop-off before presenting the chart. Later in the document they group drop-off and mail-in, so I presume they mean ballots in drop boxes. But then, I have no idea how the percentage of votes cast by drop-off could be a negative number. They also assert that the 2016 example represents "human voting" and the 2024 does not with no explanation of any kind. Isn't it possible that COVID had some lingering impact on how people cast their votes? The whole thing is a mess, which makes me think that they don't really want people to understand it.

The numbers and facts should speak for themselves anyway.

No, they absolutely should not. Not at this stage anyways. It's nothing but conceit for you to think you can figure this out from the data yourself. At this stage, it's up to the experts who have access to all the data and the knowledge of how to interpret it. Not one expert, but a lot of experts. At some point the issues and challenges would become better defined, and matters of opinion would start to separate from matters of fact. That is when average people would be able to judge what constitutes cheating and what constitutes playing the game.

There are plenty of people and organizations with resources, motivation, and interest in uncovering such a conspiracy. None of them are ringing the alarm bells. Were this a real controversy, it wouldn't be just some lone cobbled together group putting it forward.

I haven’t read up on the expert academic but having a stalled career doesn’t discount anything for me

It should, especially when the arguments put forward depend so much on expert opinion and there is only one expert being put forward. True is true, no mater who says it, but a complicated issues like this needs experts to add context that non-experts might not even consider. For instance, the sociological aspects I mentioned (makeup of purple states / covid impact on voter patterns) and others I didn't or wouldn't think of. Even just statistics themselves have a whole lot of nuance that can lead to crazy results if not handled correctly. Humans are terrible at understanding statistics at this scale.and complexity.