this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
817 points (88.9% liked)
Comic Strips
20584 readers
1832 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
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
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.
There's gotta be some way to blame the left for Trump winning. Look harder!
doesn't that mean it worked?
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.
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?
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?
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.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the leftists who switched to voting Democratic this election were dwarfed by the Democrats who didn't vote or even voted for Trump.
So they succeeded at what they were trying to do, but it was of negligible benefit.
probably. the actual demographics shifts don't make it over here, only the final numbers.
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
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
Bro you do words real good. Your closing statement is gold.
Edit to be clear: I strongly agree with their comment I just wrote it silly.
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
The logical summation I derive from this statement is: Blame the voters, as they committed a stupid and illogical act.
The only reasonable explanation for 2016 is that most people assumed Trump had no chance. There is no reasonable explanation for 2024.
I can see how you'd arrive at that conclusion (mostly by ignoring everything else I said), but my point was really that Harris needed a better argument than just that. She never gave people a reason to vote for her rather than just against Trump. That caused 14 million people who previously voted Democrat to stay home.
To a lot of apathetic people we were presented with 2 very similar choices neither of whom gives a shit about the working class. So a lot of people figured "why bother?" and I don't blame them for that. I blame Democrats for abandoning the working class and catering to corporate donors and conservatives. That's not even mentioning doing nothing to stem the flow of genocide supplies to Israel (which caused a lot of Muslim voters to stay home).
So sure, you can blame voters, but it makes more sense to blame the campaign that wasn't even trying to win.
You're working from a flawed premise. Turnout for this election was high, even among Democrats. Not as high as 2020, but very high.
Not as high as 2020. The nearest election. With trump in it.
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.
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"
Splendid discussion as usual dingdong. Twist then pull up
What do you expect when you just keep putting the same performative toxicity on display?
So much assuming.
My "toxicity" are legitimate concerns to not get trump, who will ramp everything up. Well look who's here now.
As I said, single issue stay homes, and "alternative" voices that actually only served to strike at Dems are issues I believe shifted the narrative and may have influenced the election.
I made a thread to discuss other influences beyond just punching down at 3rd party platforms.
Yes we heard you the first 3 times. Its the voters fault. The Democrats are merely victims, completely maladroit at managing their own fate.
You aren't making different any new points or clarification, just repeating the same, tired tropes that just handed the US democracy over to fascism. And we get it, you are incapable of expanding your understanding beyond the initial assumptions you made. No need to repeat yourself any longer.
Honestly dude I commented with the intent of discussing the issue but you're just slinging mud.
It's not toxicity to make an observation on forces that drove voters to not vote for harris. I didn't say Harris was a queen and how dare they. I didn't say the Dems ran a good campaign or a good primary or something.
It's not that 3rd parties exist, or have different ideas than Dems.
If I MUST discuss them I would say the only actual criticism I have (omg toxicity warning) is that they only crop up, and only vocalize in popular spaces right around general elections. They need to build their platform and messaging NOW and for the next several years with the intensity and visibility they do in August-november of a general election year. Their mission and goals would be more effectively achieved
To the first point I made. There is 0 evidence for this what-so-ever. This is just something you are making up to support a narrative. You have not even the suggestion of evidence to back this statement up.
The toxicity is a culture looking for punching bags rather than showing real introspection. Third parties were utterly irrelevant, and most of the "conversation" around them, were deeply toxic Blue-Maggots blaming them in advance for Harris's yet-to-be-failed election. I mean, its the definition of the thread we're in. Its what the comic is about.
Its literally absurdist. Everything you've said, the comic, the entire cult that you are a part of: its in direct opposition to all of the evidence we have.
And thats why I'm making these points, not because I expect to convince you, but because its important to put your, now obviously detached from reality, toxic approach to rhetoric, on display.
The blaming of third parties, or anti-war voters, or Muslims, or whichever punching down group you want to single out, on behalf of a Democratic party so severely detached from its own base, is the definition of Blue-MAGA behavior, and it lost the Democrats the 2024 election. Its all on tape. We've got it on record. Blue MAGA was told what the consequences of their rhetoric would be while they were doing it, so they can't pretend to be naive to the consequences we all now have to experience because of their stupendous arrogance.
What? Single issue voters absolutely were important ... Gaza for one.
I'm not fucking talking about 3rd party candidates or platforms, my God
Edit ultimately introspection comes second because this was a "vote for bad or worse" election and no matter the cause, no matter if you think someone or bluemaga or the moon is to blame, folks rolled the dice instead of avoiding trump. It's not victimizing to discuss that decisions have consequences.
I just want you to know how much I appreciate you continuously putting on the kind of behavior I'm trying to describe on display. Its going to make an easily accessible record for future generations to develop an understanding both why and how the Democratic party, their voices in media, and their sycophants in forums and on social media sacrificed the project of western Democracy for a self-serving circle jerk to avoid personal accountability for the obvious and inevitable consequences of their actions.
Personal accountability? Hilarious. Next 4 years will have enough of that for everyone. It's great to imagine being clean because of an opinionated stance but that's not real life.
The suggestion that abstainers or stein posters represented real opportunity to avoid trump in say, October 2024 is the most ivory tower dream ive ever seen. (I am not quoting you on that, I am discussing the sentiment that optionality existed in a general election year in a FPTP entrenched duopoly.)
Edit constructively, as I previously mentioned, 3rd party change needs to happen now, in 2025, to grow consensus and post results. That will represent positive change.
It's funny that you think I'm all in on big-DNC, but the reality is I am just eyes open on the choices I had in this election. And am aware of the consequences we now have at hand.
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?
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.
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
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.
Turnout in 2024 was about the same as 2020. It wasn't Democrats staying home. Trump simply swayed more voters.
I'm specifically referring to otherwise active voters, who are historically punchcard democrats. There are many other types of voters, but I specifically grouped a sample that is my discussion.
What's your evidence that Democrats "stayed home abnormally this election"?