65
Tim Walz says he and Harris were too ‘safe’ during 2024 presidential campaign
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2025
65 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10326 readers
80 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Phew! Good thing we avoided them getting into office then.
I love how people were convinced to avoid the party that didn't stop genocide, and vote in the party that actively promoted genocide. Pat on the back! You earned it.
Blaming voters for not being enthused about picking between two genocidal options is a one of the greatest losing strategies of all time. Nobody should be surprised at all that a chunk of the Democrats' base didn't have it in them to hold their noses tight enough for something that utterly vile — least of all Biden & Harris's campaigns.
They should have known. They were given opportunities to learn before the election even hit. They ignored them.
It was a massively idiotic move that either campaign could have avoided with a stupid level of ease, and they chose not to. Voters that didn't vote did so because they believe mass-murder is bad; whereas the best-case scenario for the Democrat's campaign is legendary incompetence, and the worst is outright genocidal malice and greed. If you're going to get mad at one, I recommend the latter.
I think you're vastly overestimating the level of humanity of the average American voter.
More Americans support Israel in the "war" than support Palestine. The same messaging that convinced them that Trump was better on the economy could easily have convinced them that Harris was in bed with "terrorists," if she started coming out swinging to stop the genocide, and betrayed our good partner Israel. She probably would have lost the election even harder.
If the election was held on Lemmy? Sure, it would have been a winning move. Everyone Lemmy knows it's a genocide. That's not what the American people think. It would have gotten her a tiny handful of votes from activists and lost her a ton of support from the idiots.
If you think she should have done it anyway, I get that. If you want the Democrats to ditch this whole consultant-operated messaging machine and adopt Bernie Sanders's authenticity instead, which probably would start winning them elections, I definitely get that. Like I said in a different comment, the problems go about a thousand miles deeper than "more town halls." On that I think we can agree. But this whole fantasy-world where the election was hers for the taking if she'd only taken the side of the Palestinians is pure fantasy. Most people thought Trump would be better on the economy, and that's why he won. The messaging which relentlessly connected Harris directly to the genocide in Gaza is only what they deploy against you, because it'll resonate better with you than stuff about the price of eggs and how Biden caused inflation.
I wasn't really ever suggesting that supporting Palestine would've outright won the election. I agree it was more complicated than that. Frankly, I think she lost because her campaign promises were incredibly weak and basically amounted to "Biden, again." Almost nobody wanted that, so of course she lost! My goal with my comment was simply to push back against all the voter-blaming I see, which I consider both insane and callous for the variety of reasons I've already elaborated on.
Anyway, for what it's worth, while it's true that most Americans still support Israel, that number is dropping fast and is drastically different amongst Democrats. Which is rather important for a Democrat's election campaign. Besides, let's not worry about what Trump's messaging would've been; if you don't give fascists ammo to shoot you with, they make it up themselves. Basing your strategy around whether he'll call you names is a losing move, because he'll do it regardless.
Gonna be blunt for a sec: Maybe we heard it a lot because hospitals were being bombed? Leftists tend to get mad about that kind of thing.
Seriously, Biden's admin sent Israel all the military equipment it could ask for, and Harris indicated several times she planned on continuing that trend. It's not a right-wing psy-op, it's war crimes.
What's the impact of Biden's policies on climate change? So far and then as calculated for the future?
What's the impact of his policies on working class wages, as of the end of his term?
I'm curious if you know the answers to those questions. In another reality, those would be vital issues to some people in the same way that Gaza was a vital issue to some people, but I'll wager that the relative importance that the media you consume placed on those three issues is basically skewed towards Gaza by an amount so close to 100% that it might as well be.
And, those were affirmative actions on his part, not just sort of "aiding and abetting" extensively with some efforts to stop it. Not that I'm saying it excuses his war-criminal support for Israel. I'm just saying that, when it's not complicated, he came out swinging in a big way to do actually good things, which is pretty unusual for an American politician. I don't know if you realize it, but "“Biden, again.” Almost nobody wanted that" is a textbook propaganda framing, sort of indirectly implying (quite effectively) that he did nothing of value.
And, of course, refusing to vote for Harris because of Gaza is about the stupidest strategy you could possibly pursue. It's now more likely than not, I think, that Gaza simply won't exist by the end of Trump's term.