this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
676 points (90.7% liked)

Comic Strips

12621 readers
3247 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Its so hilarious how this ridiculously toxic culture around blaming third party was developed, worked on for months, and then when it came time, the impact of third parties was so utterly irrelevant as to be laughable.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (3 children)

The real beef was with stay home single EDIT issue folks who would otherwise be Dem voters.

Edit for clarity: the above group are historical, nominally Dem voters, who stayed home abnormally this election.

3rd party "voices" were annoying because they only punched at Dems, never at republicans. Interestingly, a few of them migrated to libertarian and conservative instances now

[–] [email protected] 11 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Don't blame the people staying home. Blame the Democrats for doing nothing to earn those votes but say "Orange Man Bad". They did the exact same thing in 2016. Democrats ran on maintaining the status quo at a time when no one is happy with the status quo.

The Harris campaign should have campaigned on issues that would attract progressives and others on the left. Instead they tried to get conservatives to leave their cult by touting the endorsement of Dick fucking Cheney and his incredibly unpopular daughter and saying they'll close the borders and continue funding Netanyahu's genocide. It's like Harris didn't want to win.

If Democrats want to win they need to stop being Republicans.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Edit but in the spirit of conversation: Biden AND Harris are lame candidates that absolutely only maintain the status quo. As you say, voters are unhappy with that.

Edit restructure

I disagree with the conclusion that OMB isn't valid reasoning. But it's just one dudes opinion that I've laid out in the thread.

Orange man bad was more then enough to pick a rock with a smiley face on it as alternative

People will learn the consequences, regardless of what brought them in our kept them home.

If folks fundamentally can't play out the math on 2 choices in a FPTP where one is a serial rapist, anti abortion candidate, who is on record for wanting to accelerate Gaza, then I dunno what to say on that. "Status quo" starts looking pretty shiny, which is terrible, but the world we live in.

But now we have trump, and a lot of folks get to say "they didn't attract me"

[–] [email protected] 10 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Orange man bad was more then enough to pick a rock with a smiley face on it as alternative

It's a logical argument and it's a correct argument. Unfortunately it's demonstrably not an effective argument, especially when it's all you're doing. The same thing happened in 2016 with Clinton thinking she was owed votes because Trump would be (and was, and will be again) a disaster for the US. Yet they still went with the same strategy anyway.

I say this as someone who did make the "correct" choice of voting blue despite my moral objections to a lot of what she was saying. We will now all see the consequences of only barely trying to win an election against fascists.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I am aligned with you here. Well put.

To be clear, I have no love for the dnc or their strategies. I am not championing them as a model. Other commenters seem to think I'm simping for "blue maga" or some other shit.

I've consistently argued for harm reduction in a limited outcome system.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I agree with the harm reduction strategy, but I also understand people being apathetic with the choices they're presented.

Of course this means people should be more active and now is the time to start really pushing for ranked choice voting so we can maybe do something about the dominance of the two-party system.

Screw trying to convince Democrats they need to start looking left. Force them to with the threat of new, actually progressive, parties.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 hours ago

Bro you do words real good. Your closing statement is gold.

Imo that work to build candidates start right now, and to circle back my issue with third party voices, they are crickets until right before he election

[–] [email protected] 0 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

None of us would "otherwise be dem voters". What part of "I'm not voting for you because I don't support your policies" did you not understand?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

Many "normally / historically" Dem voters stayed home. That's the group I'm referring to by "single issue" section.

I don't know who you "us" are so why would I speak for you?

Because you've been so civil in your reply, I'll throw an edit on there just for you.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Just because someone voted Democrat before doesn't mean they would necessarily do so this year if it hadn't been for that pesky genocide they are doing.

By us I mean leftists, third party voters, and people who did not vote

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago

That's fine, I clarified I'm not discussing leftists.

Registered party voters represent millions and millions of voters. That type of "historical" voter is not an anomaly.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

This is all just the same toxic projection that I've been pointing out in this thread.

You want to blame third parties but there is basically 0, practically negative evidence for it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

No, I haven't discussed 3rd parties at all in my comment. I said 3rd party "voices", reading comprehension meaning "commenters/online personalities" because I noted their movement to new instances.

Edit also note I had a typo in my above "single party" to 'single issue"

[–] [email protected] -5 points 23 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

No, it was just part of a broader culture of infantalism demonstrated by Democratic apologists. There was no there there. Just people desperate for something to blame for their incompetence.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

but like... if everyone is saying "don't vote third party", and the amount of third party votes significantly drops as a result, isn't this what the result would look like?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

There is a term for the act of only looking for evidence that confirms your bias. If the "strategy" worked, then why isn't Kamala Harris president?

And if that wasn't the goal of the strategy, what point is it that you think was being made in the first place?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 22 hours ago

i have no idea what the strategy of the us democratic party was, I'm just reflecting on what i've on social media over the past month or so (a constant barrage of "don't vote third party") and comparing it to the results (very few people voting third party). of course there's no way to know how much of that was due to said barrage, but we can for sure say that the people telling people to vote third party failed.