• Optional
    link
    fedilink
    418 days ago

    Goddamn y’all lefties or whatever are OUT for these recrimination threads.

    Well I suppose it’s the last bid for attention for another 3.5 years.

    • @Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      1418 days ago

      “Now is not the time for criticism, it’s not election season - save that for the primaries”

      “Now is not the time for criticism, the primaries are soon”

      “Now is not the time for criticism, there’s only 100 days to go before the general”

      “Now is not the time for criticism, we just had a huge, crushing loss”

      So are liberals/democrat faithful/etc really committed to never learning, or never listening? When am I allowed to criticize half of the political duopoly that is increasing out of touch not just with my concerns, but openly snubs voting blocs and demands fealty in return for the status quo?

      • Optional
        link
        fedilink
        118 days ago

        Oh absolutely. Let’s get down and discuss all of the policy proposals we want the next presidential candidate to have RIGHT NOW.

        Go.

        • @UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          217 days ago

          You are more then welcome to visit my ask lemmy post about replacing First-past-the-post voting with a more representative electoral system. No more party worship, no more two party system, no more handcuffs on our wrists.

          We can be free.

        • @Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          1118 days ago

          A popular mandate. That’s literally the bar we’re talking about here, and I’m amazed to see people upset that others are pointing out how low it is.

          But when they fake a primary, you don’t get a genuinely popular candidate. When they don’t even hold a primary, you never hear the other opinions in the electorate. Biden owns a lot of responsibility for this loss, but the leadership has their share too for trying to walk this over the line on diet republicanism in a quest to scrape by 270.

          • Optional
            link
            fedilink
            117 days ago

            Well, okay, that’s not a policy proposal, but I see you’ve got the beginnings of . . . . party. . policy? Maybe?

            Can you be a little more - y’know, government policy proposal-y? What you’d want the candidate to advocate for?

            Or were you just saying people weren’t allowed to crap on the DNC before the election and now that it’s lost people aren’t being allowed to crap on the DNC because instead of being insufferable assholes with nothing of value to add, actually, colonialist imperialist genocider corporate whores are preventing them from changing the world for good?

            • @Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              117 days ago

              Bruh if you wanna argue with yourself, go ahead and build the straw man already

              The argument I’m making in reply to your “stop complaining” post (and that you seem to deliberately be ignoring) is that the DNC and/or establishment Democrats routinely silence internal dissent at any and all times. And that right now they still aren’t listening internally, and have demonstrated a commitment to gaslight voters that inflation isn’t real, and that voters shouldn’t be trusted/allowed to pick who they get to vote for.

              Voters have told us in exit poll after exit poll, that their primary issues are economic uncertainty and cost of living, loss of faith in governance, and then immigration.

              32% of voters nationwide said the economy mattered most in deciding how to vote in the presidential election. 11% said immigration, 14% abortion, 34% the state of democracy, 4% foreign policy.

              • Optional
                link
                fedilink
                116 days ago

                Okay, so let’s just take as a given that, yes, the Democratic candidates should have focused on the economy, immigration, abortion, and the state of democracy, with apparently 4% of foreign policy thrown in.

                That is what you’re arguing they should have done, correct?

                If so, what do you think they did NOT say about those issues. You can focus on Kamala if you prefer, or the entirety of all Democratic candidates if you want to assert that.

                • @Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  115 days ago

                  Correct, that’s my argument.

                  Economy/ Cost of living: Beyond pithy “I feel your pain” statements and a late-election focus on price gouging and new homebuyer credits, there was not much for the working poor.

                  • Nothing about corporate tax dodging or enforcing consumer’s rights - Lina Kahn at the FTC would have been an easy layup and she’s gotten results already
                  • Very shy on pro-union messaging Silent about healthcare costs (beyond in-home carers)

                  For someone pinched by inflation and/or predatory corporate pricing, being told “more of the last four year’s policy is coming, sorry we have no money - except for Israel” is a huge turnoff.

                  State of Democracy: I think the DNC/establishment Dems massively misread this issue as purely J6/dictator Trump - because ignoring the massive democratic disengagement and apathy means they don’t have to address why voters are unenthusiastic about electoral participation at most levels, and instead “it’s all the MAGAs fault” without questioning why the MAGA movement exists beyond “they’re deplorable”. Trump’s vote total basically flatlined from 2020, two different assassination attempts barely moved polling, he isn’t an unknown figure and voters at large do not like him. What he is however, is a break from “more of the same” no matter how damaging or foolish that may be for the world/country. In no order, here’s what Dems should target/message on:

                  • Actually running a primary
                  • Not cheating in those primaries
                  • Alternative voting like ranked choice
                  • Not platforming billionaires
                  • Evidence of the party coming down on the side of the worker, instead of corporate/moneyed interests during tough choices. The rail strike is a perfect example, but also the East Palestine spill
                  • Evidence of the party listening to voters concerns, like not running Biden again or heeding the ‘uncommitted’ movement.
                  • Not surrendering to the Republican narrative on the outrage of the day, and being the adults in the room that deliver results for voters instead of distractions. Clap back with “It’s weird to focus on that - we have an economy to solve.” instead of allowing them to controls the narrative
                  • Optional
                    link
                    fedilink
                    115 days ago

                    Well, I appreciate the studied reply, so thank you for that.

                    I just disagree. I thought she was policy-heavy including healthcare position papers and supporting FTC chair, and I disagree entirely that trump is a “change” for anything other than jumping face-first into the pit of hell, just like we did in 2017.

                    As for the bit about DNC being unfair by not running a primary; that’s not really done with a sitting President. Which was the case here when it was time to run primaries. We didn’t do that in 96, 2012, and if Dems ever get elected again, we probably won’t four years after that. That’s not dirty pool - in fact, if I’d spent my career in the BlahBlah party and been elected president, then for my re-election campaign they demanded I go through primaries again, I’d say fuck all the way off. That’s ridiculous.

                    I also think there’s a heavy element about perception of Harris’ campaign which had nothing to do with Harris or her campaign. I thought she was very centered on economics and made some good policy suggestions for those times the corporate news chose to repeat anything about policy. Corporate news was determined - again - to narrate a horse race, and the right-wing is entirely off on their own planet of propaganda shit now so they weren’t even going to try.

                    So TL;DR: disagree she had nothing about the economy for the poor or working class, but it wasn’t way out front either so I’d agree that it should have been. I also disagree that “state of Democracy” wasn’t a big focus, or that how she got to be the candidate was the result of trickery of some sort - that’s just the way it fell and I don’t think anyon could have planned it to look and run exactly like that.