This makes her “strategy” even more baffling than before. How do you know you are down the entire time and do absolutely nothing about policy?
deleted by creator
They got the victory they wanted, muting and eliminating any progressive elements in their wing of the corporate party. Winning the presidency was secondary to crushing dissent from the left.
I’m currently researching to write an article about this exact thing. I heard that they were literally getting consulting from current UK Labor Party people. I think it was intentional that they sent Bill Clinton and Richie Torres to Michigan. I think they wanted to lose the Muslim vote and pick up imaginary embarrassed suburban women that the data wouldn’t show, even if it really existed. Sort of a leap of faith.
I think they were trying to do a Starmerite purge. The nonprofit-killing bill and the antizionism=antisemitism bills were supposed to be the final nail in the coffin
Killing your party to own the leftists
How do you know you are down the entire time and do absolutely nothing about policy?
Because she didn’t want to win. The dems don’t want to make change they want to make money, and Trump and a right wing government will help them make the most money. They can pretend to huff and puff all they want but ultimately their stock portfolios will reap the rewards of this and that’s all they cared about from the beginning.
Devils Advocate: Do people actually vote based on policy or is it more “vibes” and identity?
The best weeks for Kamala’s campaign were when her running mate called Republicans weird. And then they dropped it a week later instead of doubling down on the only thing that moved the polls. Almost like they didn’t want to win 🤔
i bet that’s why the biden administration won’t enact the equal right amendment despite project 2025 looming nearby; they want that pain inflected to help them win next time around and it’ll work given how successfully project 2025 worked as a virtue signal for democrats.
It’s so disgusting to have power and not use it on purpose to help people.
She could’ve swung for the fences on progressive policies, if she knew she was doomed right? Not like anyone would ever be honest about it, but they ran their perfect centrist anti Trumper campaign and lost which has gotta take the shine off that a little. She could’ve ran on a Bernie style platform, lost and then they could claim “well see it never works let’s never do that again”
They can’t risk anyone getting the idea that they support progressive causes.
they dare not suggest that a better world is possible. they just got done shutting that shit down in 2020
I feel like her political background just isn’t a “swing for the fences” one, though. The only thing that would’ve made her lose worse than she did would’ve been if she was faking it. People might not be smart about policy and whatnot, but Americans can spot a fake 100 miles away.
Trump was never anything but his most authentic self from the moment he rode down that escalator until today.
Harris trying to go fulll Bernie/ Squad would’ve failed spectacularly. Because that not what she believes in.
I feel like Trump has said a lot of things that he didn’t hold himself to, which is kinda fake behaviour. I think I understand what you mean though, even though I struggle to articulate it
Trumps authentic self is a liar.
The above comment isn’t about lying, but about authenticity.
Americans can’t necessarily spot a liar a hundred miles away, but they absolutely can spot insincerity a hundred miles away.
but Americans can spot a fake 100 miles away.
Ehh, Trump himself is 100% a fake. But he’s gamed the system to exist as a fluke inside it.
i don’t agree that he’s a fake. He’s a liar, a fraudster, a con man, a grifter, a showman, but always his authentic self as those things.
He doesn’t half-ass it like the Democrats do, that’s for sure.
but is she a progressive? like even a little bit, in private?
No she’s not, this would be some weird double bluff play of pretending to be progressive while knowing she’s losing in order to lower the already low cachet of progressive electoral politics
The Washington Generals were never supposed to win
Hey if you had the chance to spend $1.5 billion in a few months wouldn’t you take it
I would have spent 1.5 billions just paying people’s debts and saying “brought to you by the Kamala Harris campaign”.
I guess this is the answer to how her campaign spent 1.5 billion in 15 weeks.
that’s what it was meant to do: acquire a shitload of dough and funnel it through the apparatus for a nice generous skimming off the top by “consultants”, and then back into the pockets of corporate allies that make their favorite treats and own the fancy hotel chains and sell the air time of giant media companies.
the contest is incidental to the campaign as a mechanism for accumulating, funneling and reconcentrating wealth.
How do you know you are down the entire time and do absolutely nothing about policy?
Because her superiors on Wall Street don’t care what party wins, just that policies never change.
Years ago, one of my personal moments of radicalization was realizing just how many entities donate to both parties
