That polling was mentioned immediately in the article, but it then points to the wealth of issues where the headline is true.
GarbageShootAlt2
joined 2 years ago
Well, I would argue that that is like 95% where their votes are coming from, basically "This is still the 'left' option, I guess," rather than believing in any sort of positive vision on the part of the Democratic Party (it doesn't have one).
However, politics isn't just a 1-dimensional spectrum where things neatly slot into whatever is closest. The fact that they are lurching rightward, the apparent contempt they have for the left, the lack of any meaningful similarity between what a left-wing person wants and what the Democrats will even acknowledge is real (like action on the genocide in Palestine), means that what you are taking as similarity is in many cases difference. Just saying "Fuck you, vote for me because the other guy is worse" is really not a good strategy for getting votes unless you are holding getting votes as secondary to pandering to donors.
Like, do you think a new Republican candidate could just be blatantly pro-choice and not lose one or two dedicated blocs of the Republican voting base, just because "he's still the farthest right"? Of course not, democracy doesn't work that way. If you don't support people on the issues they care about most, a good number of them will tell you to go to hell while the others roll over as always.
Dissolving Israel doesn't mean kicking every Jewish person out. There are Jewish people in Palestine already, and the point is to make a multiethnic state, not replace one ethnostate with another. Many Israelis would definitely leave for a number of reasons, very much like how a meaningful part of the white population fled South Africa in the wake of Apartheid being defeated, but there are houses where there are no other claimants and, God forbid, the remaining former Israelis can also just buy or rent homes instead of stealing them. There would be a big population shift, but there is absolutely no need to build a 10-million-person-ark.
compromising on social policy (especially immigration . . . )
That compromise has already happened. Harris is currently campaigning on a hardline border policy and touting that she tried to get essentially Trump's 2020 border policy through the legislature.
If the Dems lose, they will move right. If they win, they will move right. Without a strong leftist opposition (not just voice, but opposition), they will keep moving right term after term after term while touting superficial bullshit to try to please people who have a conscience but very little political education.
There was a thread just yesterday about why the Democrats haven't done anything progressive in so long, and people were seriously touting Harris being black like that at all matters in the face of her being a cop, or like it's actual policy and not just the incidental identity of their prospective President. I wrote a whole thing on it before deleting it because I just can't stand to talk to people like that anymore.
Bibi is evil, but he's absolutely a scapegoat for the evil of the Israeli government and even the people, as it is basically never reported in the west how his approval went up after escalating against Lebanon, and he generally is pushed to take more severe (and heinous) action by the bulk of the Israeli people. That's not to say every one of them is a bad person or Bibi is less evil, but every single one who is good is an anti-zionist.
Destroying the state of Israel, contrary to Zionist propaganda, does not mean killing all the Israelis, nor imprisoning them or otherwise punishing them. It means destroying the government apparatus that, from the beginning of its very existence, has been a racial-supremacist settler-colonial entity, and investigating what evidence is turned up in its records and punishing the actual criminals accordingly. Oh, and returning stolen homes where there's anyone still surviving to reclaim them.
The distinction being drawn is that popular sentiments aren't going rightwards like the parties are.
What do you suppose is allowing the remaining threads to hold on?
Appropriately apocalyptic for the liberal view on these elections, but the problem, also appropriate for the liberal view on these elections, is that you are taking the Other to be a complete dipshit.
If you're in a situation that isn't the literal end of the world, bluffing has a serious danger associated with it because it informs all circumstances subsequent to the bluff if it gets called. From that point on, people know that your threats are not to be taken seriously, and you have robbed yourself of whatever power you had. You become a "boy who cried wolf" with respect to the actions you will take.
Furthermore, this time in all situations, it's somewhere between difficult and impossible to stake such a widespread plan of action on everyone at all times maintaining a lie. How do you agitate for such a thing? You can't speak of it in the open. How do you vet candidates? Someone might be an asset (and liberals usually believe spaces both online and offline are crawling with assets for other states) or even just someone who thinks you plan is bullshit and will decide to talk about it afterwards. Basically, your plan works in the same realm of imagination where wars would stop if all of the soldiers on both sides just laid down their arms. That is to say, if you could just cast a spell and make people act that way, sure, but that's not how politics works.
Lastly, it's important to remember we are talking about threats, so "If we have nukes, we should just use them!" is a complete non sequitur. That's not a threat, that's just an attack. Incidentally, while there is a good argument to be made that if you get nuked, you should just take the L if you think your barrage might tip the scales into the world ending, such an idea definitionally does not work as the dominant ideology because at that point MAD does not protect your country anymore and there's really no point in you having nukes when you're just surrendering to death anyway. If you're an individual operator of a nuclear silo or something and you refuse to participate in ending the world, good for you, but again that's something that you can't organize with because it's a conspiracy of a similar style to what I outlined before, so you aren't going to succeed in helping very much unless you're on the vanguard and it might be a false positive that an enemy nuke was launched at all (this happened at least once with the USSR, during the Cuban Missile Crisis). In that extremely specific situation where mass action is impossible and only a tiny fraction of a fraction of the population ever gets close to being in the conditions where such an incident has even a slim possibility of occuring: Yes, there it works well.
A threat that you refuse to make good on is the same as doing nothing. I have no interest in telling someone who to vote for, but your proposed strategy is ridiculous.
Words can have different colloquial meanings. There is a really crass meaning of liberal that would identify Marx as a liberal, yes, and this is the most popular one in America, but there's another colloquial meaning (more popular in other anglophone countries, but gaining traction in America) where liberals are basically centrists (in capitalist societies) who might pretend to be progressive but are ultimately moderates to their bones. This came from the proclivities of "Liberal" parties, along with centrists understandably claiming the name of whatever the ruling ideology is, and here it is of course liberalism.
Among leftist circles, "liberal" is sort of an unmarked term for the moderate definition and the Lockean definition both, like how "guys" can refer to both a group of males and a group of mixed gender, despite "gals" only referring specifically to a group of females (I'm using those terms because they apply to children also, not just men/women).
So the comment is saying, in translation: "Democrat aligned people will still blame socialists (etc.) like their Democrat ideological cult wants them to." Does that make sense?
Third parties are never even mentioned in the article. Is all left criticism of Harris "vote-third-party slop"?
This is one of those things where we all know what it means but you have deniability if someone calls you out on it. Just say what you mean instead of resorting to dogwhistling.