pjwestin @ pjwestin @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

1,079

Joined

2 yr. ago

Bernie can’t compete with only grassroots donations.

Literally all of the data I shared says the fucking opposite, dude! On top of that, Trump was running a grassroots campaign in 2016 that broke GOP records for small-donor money, and he won even though Clinton out-spent him. So, what actual evidence do you have to back up your assertions here? Or is it just the vibes?

What are you not getting here? HARRIS HAD MORE MONEY. HARRIS SPENT MORE MONEY. HARRIS LOST.

Harris campaign took in HALF A BILLION MORE THAN TRUMP in direct contributions. In terms of dark money, her Super PAC, Future Forward USA, took in $423 million while Trump's PAC, Maga America Great Again Inc., took in $280 million. Even if you look at all the Super PAC money spent on the presidential race in 2024,
$889 million was spent on pro-Harris/anti-Trump messaging, while only $834 million was spent on pro-Trump/anti-Harris messaging. Any way you slice it, the money was on Harris' side, not Trump's.

You've got a narrative in your head that the billionaires all teamed up and used their money to defeat Harris, but it's based on nothing but your feelings and assumptions, not reality. And remember, you're the one who started off claiming that if Bernie couldn't beat the DNC conspiring against him, he couldn't beat billionaires and their Super PAC money. But now you're the one who won't accept that the money was on Harris' side this election and she fucking lost.

This isn't reality, this is contradictory nonsense based on vibes. Saying Musk Super PAC must have been effective because Trump won is like saying Trump's golden sneakers must have been effective because Trump won. And by this exact logic, spending more must not have been effective, because Trump spent less and he won.

Foreign interference isn't magic; Russian bots didn't hand Trump the win, just like Iran hacking Vance didn't hand him a loss. Elon Musk's Super PAC seems to have been largely ineffective, just like Mark Cuban seems to have been ineffective for Harris. These reasons you're giving for Trump's victory aren't based on evidence. These are excuses to avoid the conclusion that, despite spending way more than Trump, Harris' campaign and message weren't good enough to win.

Democrats don’t run attack ads against the other primary candidates.

Guess no one told Bloomberg that. Also, we've just come through the second election where Trump won despite spending far less than the Democrats. I'm sure the billionaire class would go hard against Sanders, but spending isn't everything in campaigns anymore, especially against populists.

Oh, I don't think that's true at all. Rogan is stupid people. He's a very good interviewer, but he's not particularly clever. He's also not an idealogue or grifter like Shapiro or Crowder either. Half the time, his show and guests aren't even political. He's gone down a right wing rabbit hole, but he got their honestly by having right-wing idealogues on and being swayed by them (because, again, he's not very clever). We shouldn't be trying to astroturf a version his show, we should be sending smart, charismatic leftists on his show to push back.

“People saying Harris should have done Joe Rogan are missing the point. That wouldn’t have helped her,” argued The Nation legal commentator Elie Mystal on X. “Liberals need to BUILD THEIR OWN JOE ROGAN. Somebody who can speak to the people he speaks to, without being a guy who wants to kiss ass to billionaires like Elon Musk.”

Rogan endorsed Bernie in 2020. They could clearly win over Rogan and his viewers, but they would just need a progressive message from an authentic candidate. These people think it would be easier to reproduce the success of the most popular podcast of all time rather than give people a candidate they want to vote for.

No, I'm saying that the map labels Louisiana the crappiest state, but it isn't because it has New Orleans. Otherwise, the OP's map isn't bad.

Yeah, but the Republicans don't have as much control over the general elections as Democrats do over the primary. They don't get to control who gets on the ballot, they don't get to set the schedule for a months-long voting process, they don't have superdelegates to tip the scales...primaries are an internal process set up by the parties to give them maximum influence, not a level playing field.

I used to think that, but really he won the center voter. He appealed on jobs, and inflation, and manufacturing, and all those things that are center. He really did get the center voter.

These aren't centrist issues, these are just...issues. Like, jobs isn't left, right, or center. It's just something that matters to people. But trying to solve it by deporting 13 million people is far right.

I'm sorry, but I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. Harris ran to the center, Trump ran to the far-right. If people who consider themselves moderate or centrist voted for him, that just indicates that even people who think of themselves as being in the middle politically aren't interested in the Democrats centrism anymore. Anyway, I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just not sure where you're coming from here.

Yeah, Bernie is routinely ranked the most popular politician in America. I think it's also worth noting that, while conservative messaging is very good at making figures like AOC seem radical or extreme, it does the same to centrist figures like Pelosi or Obama; Republicans convinced themselves that Obama was a communist for continuing Bush's bank bailouts and implementing Mitt Romney's Healthcare plan. No matter what the Democrats do, the Republicans will paint them as radical leftists, so they might as well go for bold, popular policy agendas like Medicare for All or a $20 minimum wage rather than small incremental changes that voters don't understand or care about.

And again, if that's the case, then centrists are even suckier at voting, because they keep fucking losing even harder. And it still doesn't explain when progressive preform so much better in elections where Democrats can't put their thumb on the scales for centrists.

Buddy, you're proving mine. If Bernie's loss in the primary is proof that Americans aren't that progressive, then Harris and Hillary's losses in the general prove that Americans aren't that centrist. You can't have it both ways.

So that would mean that the majority of the electorate is far-right, which would make no sense given how strongly progressive ballot measures overperformed against the Harris campaign, or why Bernie polled more favorably against Trump than Clinton or Biden. Somehow, Americans would have disliked centrist and progressive politicians and like far-right politicians, but for some reason prefer progressive policies, and also favor the most high profile progressive in the Senate...or, Occam's Razor, people prefer progressives, but the Democrats keep rat-fucking them in the primaries in favor of centrists.

I don't think that's entirely correct. If what you were saying about progressive politicians were true, Bernie Sanders would not be the most popular politician in the country. I think the real problem is that the Democrats are no longer credible messengers of a working class message. I think that's why Dan Osborne won by not only running as an independent, but flat out rejecting the local Democrats endorsement.

Also, it's important to remember that it was the centrists who pivoted towards culture war issues when they no longer had a progressive economic message they could run on. As Hillary Clinton said during the 2016 primary:

If we broke up the big banks tomorrow...would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community? Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?

Buddy, half your comment history is whining about non-voters costing Harris the election, and you're gonna turn around and say, "less people voted for Bernie, deal with it?" Bernie had the entire party lined up to block him; name another candidate the party has done that to. Meanwhile, Harris had a level playing field with Trump and he wiped the floor with her.

Face it- if she can't win an election then that's on her. And this is coming from someone who voted for her in 2024. People seriously need to wake up and either start voting en masse in the general elections or realize that America is just not that moderate.

I mean, the commenter is overstating what happened in 2016 and 2020, but Biden did not, "wipe the floor," with him. Obama and the DNC convinced every centrist to drop out, consolidating the moderate vote around Biden, while Warren stayed in, splitting the progressive vote, and Bloomberg used his personal wealth to run anti-Bernie ads. Then Biden had to ask Bernie to help him craft a platform just so he could be electable. It's less that, "Biden wiped the floor with him," and more that, "the entire Democratic party lined up to block Bernie so Biden could limp over the finish line."

Crappiest state is either Mississippi or Alabama. Louisiana at least has New Orleans. Otherwise, not bad.

Good. The Democrats screwed Sanders over twice, and both times, he took it graciously and stood with them against Trump. Now that they have proved completely and utterly incapable of fighting the rise of fascism, there's no need to pull punches or play nice. There's no point in supporting the lesser of two evils if it is completely incapable of opposing the greater evil.

The Democratic Party is the political equivalent of a bloated whale carcass festering in the hot sun. Maybe if we stripped away all its old, rotting fat, we might find some use for its bones, but otherwise, it serves no purpose. Anyone telling you how it's going to swim again is either delusional or lying.

It depends on how much of an absolutist you want to be. No government allows absolute freedom of speech. Libel, slander, and incitement of violence are all forms of speech that are illegal in basically every country. If your platform refuses to remove these forms of speech, you would be protecting what is generally not considered to be free speech, and it's possible you could even be held legally liable for allowing that kind of speech to spread on your platform.

If you decide not to be a free speech absolutist, and instead define free speech as legal speech, then things get complicated. In the U.S., the Supreme Court has held multiple times that hate speech is protected under the First Amendment, so censoring hate speech would mean your platform wasn't allowing all forms of, "free speech." However, the U.S. has much broader protections on speech than most Western countries, and hate speech is illegal in much of Europe.

So, TL:DR; free speech is a sliding scale, and many countries wouldn't consider hate speech to be protected form of speech. By those standards, you could have a platform that censors hate speech but still maintains what is considered free speech. However, by other countries' standards, you would be censoring legal speech.