Kansas Crimson

of course you don’t

everyone else does

i think the top of the ticket in 28 will be aoc for sure. who they pick to run with her gets a little murky. my very early prediction is rupaul. aoc/rupaul in 28.

biggdork. is aoc/rupaul a ticket you could get behind in 28.

I dunno if I said anyone else is making anything up, either.

I dunno why that last post even received accusations of making shit up.

It's established around here as a matter of fact that one or more posters expressed more concern for Gaza after Trump got reelected.

And, it's also a matter of fact that if Dems wanna win more elections then they have to figure out how to appeal to more voters. That's how elections work!

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:42 am i think the top of the ticket in 28 will be aoc for sure. who they pick to run with her gets a little murky. my very early prediction is rupaul. aoc/rupaul in 28.

biggdork. is aoc/rupaul a ticket you could get behind in 28.

ha.

no, probably not, honestly. But it would depend on the particulars of the platform.

I've opined tho that AOC may be a candidate with the social media savvy and/or generally populist ground game that Dems kinda need, and have otherwise been lacking. But AOC's not without her own issues, too.

BiggDick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:23 am I'm not sure this particular issue (this thread) is getting any worse under Trump, though, so much as it is that this thread has always been bad and you only started caring more about it now that Trump is in office.

but, speaking of "shortage of company..."

if my third-party vote really did cost Dems the election, then it would probably behoove Dems to stop blaming me and instead start trying to actually appeal to me, so it doesn't happen to Dems again in 2028.

Nobody is saying that your third-party vote cost Dems the election.

That would be a fantastical thing to say, which is why only a straw man would say it.

However, the number of people who did not vote for Harris on the basis of some issue on which Trump would obviously be just as bad if not worse (whether that is Gaza, or egg prices, or free speech, or what the fuck ever) is absolutely a MULTIPLE of the number of votes that would have been needed to avert what sure looks like a multi-generation backslide (if we're lucky).

Do the Dems deserve blame for lots of things? Yes. Among many other things (and limiting to the 2024 cycle only), they should have been clearer-eyed on Biden's weakness and non-viability as a candidate, and then they should not have watered down the Harris/Walz potion when it appeared to have the needed strength.

But fuck and yes I blame these issues voters, as well, for recklessly and arrogantly and foolishly and selfishly failing to digest the gravity of the decision before them.

or. maybe next time. don't run the only person in America that couldn't beat the biggest jerk in America.

seriously dude?

Fish, you probably more than any other poster have shamed me for voting third party*, and suggested a Trump L/Kamala W if I didn't.

Tho, I do agree, it IS fantastical, and a straw man.

I also agree that this looks like a multi-generation backlslide. But I'm afraid that backslide has been in effect for quite some time now, and has happened and is happening in ways that are due to more than just one president or party.

I would also be curious to hear you clarify what you mean when you say dems "should not have watered down the Harris/Walz potion when it appeared to have the needed strength."





*for real, look! You just did it right here, by the end of the exact same post you claimed not to!

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:53 am
Nobody is saying that your third-party vote cost Dems the election.
...

But fuck and yes I blame these issues voters, as well, for recklessly and arrogantly and foolishly and selfishly failing to digest the gravity of the decision before them.

unless you wanna distinguish "issues voters" from "third-party" votes.

but I think "issues voters" is a tell, here. If voters are NOT voting on issues, then what are they voting on, exactly?

Oh yeah, that's right: rigid partisan allegiance.

BiggDick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:23 am I'm not sure this particular issue (this thread) is getting any worse under Trump, though, so much as it is that this thread has always been bad and you only started caring more about it now that Trump is in office.

but, speaking of "shortage of company..."

if my third-party vote really did cost Dems the election, then it would probably behoove Dems to stop blaming me and instead start trying to actually appeal to me, so it doesn't happen to Dems again in 2028.

Or: Harris becoming president wasn't quite as appealing to me as Trump reclaiming the White House.

hi defix!

If I'm reading you right, you seem to insinuate I, and/or third-party voters, thought there was something appealing about Trump reclaiming the White House.

And, I assure you, there was and is nothing appealing about Trump reclaiming the White House! Not to me, nor to any other third-party voter I know personally.

The other day Fish and I debated the "math" of third-party votes. And, like I said then and I will reiterate now - a vote has a mathematical value of 1 only for the candidate for whom that vote is cast. It has a mathematical value of zero for every other candidate.

So, no matter how many zeros we try to add up as evidence that a third-party voter actually found Trump appealing, the sum will always be zero.

Rather, I think I, like so many other third-party voters, and like so many Dems, may have overestimated just how much voter support Trump would really get. I didn't think Dems would loose ground among younger and of-color and female demographics like they did, either! But I also don't think it's anyone's fault besides Dems that Dems did.

What we're also seeing, I think, is some growing number of Americans becoming disillusioned with one or both major parties. This may be evidence that Americans are collectively loosing faith in our systems. I mean how many "lesser of two evil" elections do we gotta endure?!

I don't blame people for voting 3rd party.

But, I think doing so in certain states meant that your priorities were ranked something like:
1. Protesting the dems choices, stances, and process.
2. Keeping Trump our of the WH

If keeping Trump out of WH was a higher priority than voicing displeasure with the Dems then in swing states or battleground states then I think Defix's statement applies (if my interpretation is correct). You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth in those swing/battleground states. Either keeping Trump out was top priority or voicing displeasure to the party was top priority.

I voted 3rd party this time. Simply to voice my displeasure with the Dems choices and process to the entire thing. But ONLY because I live in a safely blue state where my protest vote wouldn't indirectly help Trump win back the WH.

Yeah, well that's your opinion, dude. The only thing to vote for in the last election was a continuation of democracy, because without it, all third party ideas are irrelevant.

*My reply is to Biggus Dickuss*

step 1 would be - stop running the worst of. that your party has to offer.

this goes for both parties.

No. Step 1 is to vote for democracy.

defixione wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:46 am No. Step 1 is to vote for democracy.

This guy get's it. If the democratic process/system survives, there is at least a small chance your concerns will be heard.

The current regime only wants to figure out how they personally can financially benefit from this horrific situation. Abusive dad president has signaled to the vulture capitalists that this place/corpse is ripe for the scavenging. He will demand his cut when the dealmaking starts.

sure...but I think if a vote for democracy is compulsory, then it's something less than a vote for democracy anyway.

If we really want to champion democracy, then we should be celebrating the freedom to vote for whatever candidate one chooses.

I agree that we're something less than a democracy now tho. Heck, I don't know if we were ever a particularly healthy democracy to begin with! (for real, remember when this "democracy" started out by only affording votes to while male landowners? Tho, yea, I realize we've enjoyed a progressive expansion of voter rights since)

but I think the deviating from democracy just didn't happen one one day, so much as it has been some long slow slide. Things like the Citizens United and Shelby cases and such, and the resulting fallout of that both in the form of oppressive policies as well as inaction to counterbalance, have played bigger factors along the way than any one particular candidate or election.

japhy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:56 am

defixione wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:46 am No. Step 1 is to vote for democracy.

This guy get's it. If the democratic process/system survives, there is at least a small chance your concerns will be heard.

The current regime only wants to figure out how they personally can financially benefit from this horrific situation. Abusive dad president has signaled to the vulture capitalists that this place/corpse is ripe for the scavenging. He will demand his cut when the dealmaking starts.

But the Dems didn't have primaries.

BiggDick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 11:02 am sure...but I think if a vote for democracy is compulsory, then it's something less than a vote for democracy anyway.

If we really want to champion democracy, then we should be celebrating the freedom to vote for whatever candidate one chooses.

I agree that we're something less than a democracy now tho. Heck, I don't know if we were ever a particularly healthy democracy to begin with! (for real, remember when this "democracy" started out by only affording votes to while male landowners? Tho, yea, I realize we've enjoyed a progressive expansion of voter rights since)

but I think the deviating from democracy just didn't happen one one day, so much as it has been some long slow slide. Things like the Citizens United and Shelby cases and such, and the resulting fallout of that both in the form of oppressive policies as well as inaction to counterbalance, have played bigger factors along the way than any one particular candidate or election.

I stopped reading there.

What a crock of shit.

good point, Shirley!

ETA about Dems not holding primaries.

If I can even try to say so any more. But I do mean it sincerely.

ETA also it's a bummer you stopped reading there. I really don't get these posters who go for this sort of vote-shaming while also purporting to be some champions of democracy.

related, and again - if the only thing standing up for Democracy is the Democratic Party, then I sure do hope the Democratic Party figures out how to appeal to more voters.

it doesn't matter who is president. my life never changes.

BiggDick wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 11:05 am good point, Shirley!

ETA about Dems not holding primaries.

If I can even try to say so any more. But I do mean it sincerely.

ETA also it's a bummer you stopped reading there. I really don't get these posters who go for this sort of vote-shaming while also purporting to be some champions of democracy.

related, and again - if the only thing standing up for Democracy is the Democratic Party, then I sure do hope the Democratic Party figures out how to appeal to more voters.

"Warning people that one of the people running for President intends to rip our country apart is undemocratic!"

I don't even know what to do with this other than to say that I think you have some priorities backwards.