this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
912 points (96.1% liked)
Political Memes
5616 readers
1520 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but donāt intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Donāt post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The campaigns actions were, "Failing to motivate progressives who stayed home." That's how campaigns work. Candidates go out and get people to vote for them. It's the most fundamental aspect of an election. If you fail to get people to vote for you, ya did a bad job.
I'm claiming unenthusiastic people don't vote. Your assigning the intent on what they preferred. Maybe some of them chose to stay home in protest. Maybe some of them wanted to vote for Harris, but low motivation and poor access to polling made them decide one vote didn't matter. That's why getting your base excited is so important, and why I'm calling bullshit when you call it, "pandering," and assigning them motivations. Do you get the difference yet? Do you see how you're reframing what I'm saying to absolve the Democrats of blame and places it on voters? Is that clear yet? Cause there's no other possible way I can say it.
(And don't think I missed that little goal post move from, "that progressives decided that fascism was preferable to a moderate liberal," to "preferred not voting over voting for a corporate Dem." Real cute.)
You're entire fucking argument is, "progressives decided that fascism was better than voting for Harris." If that's the case, shouldn't someone have told the voters that was the case? Everyone knew they were choosing between a centrist and a fascist, even though the centrist didn't tell anybody that was the case?
Okay?
At no point did I say the campaign did a good job? In fact, I'm pretty sure I explicitly lambasted them.
Yes, in this case, your argument centered around progressives. So your argument was that progressives, not being enthused enough by Harris, decided not to vote, even though the opposition was literal fascism.
This isn't complex.
Oh, so if it was a PROTEST abstain in favor of fascism, that makes it... okay in your eyes?
That still doesn't actually contradict what I've been characterizing your argument as, by the way.
So they wanted to vote for Harris, but decided that the threat of fascism wasn't motivating enough.
Literally what it is, whether you like it or not. My argument isn't that campaigns shouldn't pander to voters; it's the idea that not being pandered to justifies whatever they do, up to and including welcoming literal fucking fascism into the country.
You were the one who assigned them motivations; namely, that they were unexcited for Harris et co. All I did was point out that that argument would mean that they necessarily considered their lack of excitement sufficient to stand by and allow fascism to win.
"Acknowledging that people are responsible for how they vote or not vote is absolving Democrats of blame"
Okay.
Citation needed.
What? No. How did you read those words and come to that conclusion?
No, I'm saying low enthusiasm leads to low turnout, and as I've pointed out twice, the Harris campaign didn't make this a referendum in fascism, and very distinctly avoided the word fascism for most of the campaign. You want to say, "well, they should have been motivated to vote for Harris to defeat fascism," when that wasn't what even Harris's pitch to voters.
You are right about one thing, though; this isn't complex. In fact, I nailed it in the first comment:
No matter how many times you try to put this on the voters, it was Harris job to get voters out. She picked moderates over progressives, and that's on her, not the progressives that didn't come out. Accept it or keep blaming progressives and lose in 2028, it's not my problem anymore. You can have the last word, since you're clearly going outlast the heat death of the universe trying to get it, and just don't care anymore.
God, reading comprehension has really gone downhill in the schools.
If them staying at home in protest isn't meant as some kind of justification, then what is its relevance? The answer would be that it has fucking none. So are you backtracking, throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks, or deliberately making shite arguments to gum up the conversation?
Ah, so we're back to "Harris didn't say fascism, therefore, it can't possibly be the fault of voters who stayed home!" What an utterly servile position on civic participation. Nothing exists except what the elite put forward, huh?
Here I thought self-proclaimed leftists might recognize fascism when it clearly and loudly presents itself, but apparently you think that progressives have the approximate political understanding of a toddler.
Again, you just clearly state the argument I've been REPEATEDLY assigning to you. Your argument is that Harris not being sufficiently appealing to progressives was justification for them supposedly sitting out the election and handing the victory over to fascists. My response is that that in no way absolves them of their duty to oppose fascism, and any so-called progressive who refuses to oppose fascism because the milquetoast Dem doesn't appeal to them enough is a fucking fascist enabler.
But hey, play apologist for enabling fascists all night long if you like. Clearly I can't stop you.