As long as a majority of Americans see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires, Sanders’ economic policies have less mass appeal and offer more opportunities for attack ads than you think. It needs to be stressed that people voted for Trump not just because he’s a loud-mouthed racist and sexist and they like that, but also because he inherited the (irrational) image of Republicans being better for the economy.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/trackers/fame-and-popularity-bernie-sanders

He’s more popular than either Trump or Kamala Harris was, and people seemed to think both of them had enough mass appeal.

The image of Trump exists more or less in a media vacuum, because they can’t say much of anything about either Trump or Kamala. Bernie speaks directly about the economy, in terms that people can understand, and every time he says things, he draws wild amounts of appeal from the both the downtrodden right-voting people and the downtrodden left-voting people, who are otherwise left with nothing but responding to the vague promptings of the media within the vacuum.

Even Trump has to imitate Bernie’s type of speaking, talking about draining the swamp and fighting for the little man, but he can’t do it very well. The media has to fill in the blanks for him. Bernie can do it directly, and from what I’ve seen, it works very well. Do you remember when he went on Joe Rogan and what people’s reaction was to that?

Public opinion on Israel was, even among college kids, very different in 2016, before the current wave of massed anti-Israel propaganda from Russian, Chinese and Iranian bot farms sweeping over social media - and even now most voters (as in: people who actually vote) are still more pro-Israel than pro-Palestine (which makes sense, given how important of a partner Israel is to the US) - and it’s still not high on the list of priorities for most, not even remotely high enough to be mentioned side-by-side with economic policy, which is and almost always has been the number one priority.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/611375/americans-views-israel-palestinian-authority-down.aspx

You might be right. I think a huge factor is that on left-wing social media, which is what you and I use, the Gaza issue was hugely amplified and linked to Biden/Harris, in a way that other issues that were much more favorable were not. For the normie social media, I think they did the same thing with the economy, which also worked gangbusters.

Are you saying that the polls are completely wrong? What are you basing the idea on that the “majority of the people” (reminder: the majority of voters just elected Trump - he actually got the popular vote this time, which is deeply, deeply troubling) have left-leaning positions on the economy and Israel?

I am saying the polls are, in general, completely wrong, yes. I think the most recent election which was anything but the toss-up they predicted is a good example of that.

Bernie’s economics are “left,” but within the spectrum of the average American voter, they aren’t seen as left-only. He doesn’t care much about Democrat branding issues. He cares about people’s pain and how to stick it to the crooks, and he speaks well about it. That’s why the Democrats didn’t like him.

I think a lot of it hinges on what a “moderate” is, in the American political frame of reference, and whether one of those is good enough for most of the American people who don’t live in Washington or NYC to ever have a chance of living a decent life.

You’ve got a point, I guess, about some of it. But I still mostly stick by my statement that Hillary fucked it, when Bernie would have crushed it, on economic policy and sanity in our Israel policy among several other key issues where the majority of people feel very differently than the people in DC and on the news do.

What were her big accomplishments in the senate again?

Here’s Bernie:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#Legislation_2

I’m not against her because she is blue, or a lady. Those are both good things. I’m against her because she was the last wave of the Clinton-era conservatism that poisoned the Democrats and lost them supporters which led in large part to our current catastrophe. For more, see the source article.

Bernie would have won the fuck out of 2016.

Hillary almost won, and she had essentially nothing to bring beyond being blue, a lady, and continuing the status quo. On top of that she is too fake for politics, which is a high level of fakeness. Bernie would have been an upgrade to everyone who doesn’t work in DC.

How he would have done as president, I have no idea. But he absolutely would have won.

I’m usually the one defending the Democrats against whatever accusation, and I completely approve this message. It’s the 2016 DNC’s fault, and a lot of them are still around making equally bad and corrupt decisions.

The difference being that it takes the standpoint, “We need to take over the Democrats or make something better, so the world doesn’t burn.” It’s the similar but very different standpoint, “It’s the Democratic Party’s fault that the world is burning and I’m not helping until they get better” that is unhelpful.

Edit: https://lemmy.world/post/21721606

I’ve spent enough of my arguing about politics energy for today, especially now that the horse has left the barn.

https://ponder.cat/comment/839212

https://ponder.cat/comment/837488

https://ponder.cat/comment/835981

That’s my response. There’s some good stuff in there. I do not require any kind of response on any of it.

• Media fault: 20%
• Putin / Musk / etc interference fault: 25%
• America dumb fault: 30%
• Long history of shitty Democrats fault: 15%
• Kamala Harris fault: 10%

Sure, you can say she shouldn’t have done the 10%. Would it have been enough? After watching what Biden did and how people reacted to him, probably not.

But anyway, we’ll never know. Also, I don’t know why the 10% is the most important part, to you. The other parts are fixable, going forward.

Well, maybe not now.

(Edit: Math is hard)

That still doesn’t address the fact that many people were less likely to vote for Harris if she continued to want to arm Israel.

There have always been holocausts going on, somewhere in the world. A lot of times, the US is involved.

For a certain audience, the narrative was that Biden caused inflation and Trump would rescue them and make their economic lives easy. And look at that, they bought it. Even though it was opposite-land bullshit.

For a certain audience, the narrative was that Biden caused the holocaust in Gaza. And look at that, they bought it. There was some validity. But the new thing was that it was hugely important, all over their social media, and Biden was responsible, and it defined his presidency in a way that 100 other things he did failed to do.

It only got presented and spread so widely and presented so singularly as a Democrats-only issue, without acknowledgement that Trump will be ten times worse, a hundred times worse, because that presentation would hurt the Democrats.

There were other narratives in the same way. Immigration, either that Biden was too kind or too mean. Oldness and feebleness. Policing. The truth or falsehood didn’t matter. They were expertly crafted.

And the result? Now, after people bought and acted on them, hook line and sinker?

Buddy just you fucking wait. Gaza will get much worse, of course, but it will barely even register as a major problem, by the time all of this is said and done.

Whoever made the narratives got their fucking money’s worth, and then some.

Edit: It should be said that I think “It’s not the voters’ fault. It’s Harris’s fault that she didn’t earn the votes.” is another of those narratives. You’ve probably seen it a few times today. Why they’re spending effort on pushing that new one, all of a sudden right after the election, I have no idea. It barely matters. But if you take a step back and think, it’s a pretty weird thing to decide is important to say, if you’re trying to do anything other than further depress support for anything left that’s in power, and soothe the consciences of people who might have been involved in this catastrophe from the voter side.

“Don’t blame your allies.”

Proceeds to blame his allies, picking out the one wedge issue which the opponents used to greatest effect to split the left in this election.

Nothing in particular that would help anyone pick up the pieces, or figure out what happens now or what to do.

We may see military or militarized police knocking down doors.

We absolutely will. What did you think mass deportations meant?

Do you think that every one of these millions of “illegal” persons being deported or otherwise detained will get due process to prove that they are actually a citizen? They barely get that now.

Do you think it won’t expand beyond the immigrants who are on that list, once it gets going and no one’s put a stop to it when it was “immigrants”?

I talked to someone in my family today who said he’s probably safe, because of certain reasons and the category that he’s in. I’m not convinced that he is.

It won’t be my fault.

Yes it will.

Come to !rcv@ponder.cat and make a better solution.

If you are waiting for either mainstream political party to suddenly become champions of the people on their own, and you’re refusing to take certain actions even in the face of catastrophic threat until they do, then yes, it will be your fault if the catastrophe comes true.

That outcome may be fine for you, and you may feel virtuous about your participation in that outcome for your reasons. It’s somewhat safe for you if you’re wealthy and white and born in the US and not active in left-wing politics, and confident that that all of that will keep you safe from a second Trump presidency. Of course there’s no way to be sure that it will. But regardless, a lot of people don’t have that luxury.

There is a very real possibility that a person will come to power in this election who will end elections in the United States, end the rule of law, end protest, end socialism, end third parties, end elections in the future, install his hand-picked generals into the military and then turn the inconceivable power of the United States military loose, not just on a handful of victims who have come into our crosshairs from time to time, but wholesale onto anyone and everyone anywhere in the world who it comes into his head to target.

Do you define sending weapons to Israel as “enthusiastically participate?” Wait until US troops are on the ground in Gaza and Lebanon. Wait until Putin gets a green light to invade anywhere in eastern Europe that strikes his fancy. Wait until the US military is directly attacking anyone inside the borders of the United States that dares oppose his rule, or the rule of the person who comes after him, in this or any future election.

Wait until millions of people of the wrong ethnicity inside the United States are dying in concentration camps. Wait until legal immigrants are being deported by federal troops.

Yes, the system in the United States is far from democracy. Making it ten times worse is not a good solution. Pursuing a solution is a good solution.

Like I say, I have no idea where this argument that it is okay if Trump wins the election came into the comments for this article, but it is wrong, wrong wrong. It is not okay if Trump wins this election. If you actually care about the values expressed in this article I posted, you hopefully can see that. Maybe not.

There were no WMD’s.

It’s why we’re helping Israel commit genocide.

It’s why we’re involved in Ukraine.

One of these sentences is not like the others.

If Harris wants my vote, tell me you’re going to cut the military budget, not increase it.

Why is this tying back to refusing to vote for Harris? Am I crazy, or did that come completely out of nowhere at all?

If you care about genocide, destroying millions of lives, and making the rich richer, you should be phonebanking for Harris every day of the week. She may or may not be ideal but it hardly matters. Her opponent is 1,000% worse by any conceivable measurement.

And then, after the election is done: !rcv@ponder.cat to lay a foundation for better candidates beyond that in the future.

I think that over the next few years Sam Altman is going to learn the same lessons that events have been trying to teach Elon Musk since circa 2021.

1. You didn’t build that. The people that work for you did.
2. Being a big hero is contingent on you and your behavior, and can change.
3. Those people who are giving you all this money aren’t your comrades. When your usefulness is at its end, they won’t give you a second thought.