Kamala Harris' first stop on the "107 Days" book tour was interrupted multiple times Wednesday night by protesters denouncing Israel’s war in Gaza, but the former vice president pressed on with calm.
people made it clear that supporting genocide was a line they wouldn’t cross, this was apparent even without the polls. how are we still blaming voters when the dems still refused to adjust position? they chose Israel over winning, that’s completely on them.
Yeah it’s bullshit. I voted third party because dems decided Israel is worth supporting. But let’s be mathematically accurate here.
Even if all the people who DID vote that did not vote republican had voted for the democrat, there would not have been enough electoral college influence to affect the outcome.
You would have needed more non-voters to vote. But a non-voter then was probably a never-voter. There are people that exist who simply don’t care one way or the other who is in charge and you can’t convince those people to go vote. Sure you can try, but in the end it’s the people who did vote who get what they voted for.
Regardless of all of that I find the “you should have voted democrat” argument to be exceptionally stupid. The democrat party is backing a government that I find to be morally reprehensible, as do most Americans, what should have happened is those who were saying “yeah it’s bad but I’m still gonna vote dem” should have just voted for a third party. Why vote against your interests?
So you don’t care at all about what Trump is doing right now. You don’t care that trans people are being explicitly targeted by the federal government.
That’s a weird way to interpret what I said. I care very much about what the current administration is doing. I care very much about my trans friends and the trans community. I’m very aware how things currently are.
My point is simply that it is illogical to blame people who voted third party. Because mathematically even if every single person who did vote third party voted for the democrat the Republican Party still would have won the election.
Democrats want to win? Run on a platform that is actually popular. Don’t support people like Hakeem Jeffries and Kamala Harris who talk down to their would be constituents. Don’t support people like John fetterman who is basically just a Republican posing as a democrat.
So, they refused to support genocide (a position, to be clear, that I agree with) by taking an action (voting third party) or inaction (not voting) that would clearly, and obviously, give a candidate who supported genocide a higher probability of not just winning, but being supported by others with the same opinion?
Voters were put in an invidious position and there were no good options, but there was one option that was clearly worse in every way, and they either directly or indirectly chose to support him.
Donald Trump secured a clear victory in the 2024 presidential election, but some online posts claimed Kamala Harris would have won several key states if not for ballots cast for third-party candidates. This misrepresents available data – preliminary totals show that even with all the non-Trump votes in the seven biggest battlegrounds, the vice president would not have secured an Electoral College win.
How many people decided not to vote? As I mentioned, it wasn’t just third party voters, but also those that chose not to vote. Also, to be clear, voters should not have been put in that position in the first place. However, they were put in that position, and given that there were only two possible outcomes to the presidential election, there really was only one sane choice to make. Unfortunately many chose a different one.
People who knew what would happen if your party didn’t abandon its support for genocide warned you what would happen.
Centrist democrats thought they knew better and charged right ahead with a shit candidate with a single morally reprehensible policy and a timid little bunch of promises no one could trust after the previous 4 years of broken promises.
You were wrong. You lost. You should have listened. You have the opportunity to listen now. You don’t want to. You want to blame people who don’t support the only policy the party won’t back down on.
The problem is, it’s not really the dems who lost, it’s everyone who isn’t a fascist. The party as a whole isn’t really affected by this (and that’s a huge problem), and most of the candidates who lost their elections are part of the party and will just carry on. The way that changes is through pushing for, and supporting, candidates at all levels who support a better agenda, not at the ballot box.
The whole system sucks; be mad about it, push to change it, but I don’t think that those who voted third party, or chose not to vote think this, overall, is better than the results of Harris being in the White House, and they, combined, could have changed this outcome.
Ultimately this election is done, the situation is what it is, and, with a bit of luck, there’ll be elections next year and in '28 where some of this can start to be undone. I wish I was more confident in that.
people made it clear that supporting genocide was a line they wouldn’t cross, this was apparent even without the polls. how are we still blaming voters when the dems still refused to adjust position? they chose Israel over winning, that’s completely on them.
Yeah it’s bullshit. I voted third party because dems decided Israel is worth supporting. But let’s be mathematically accurate here.
Even if all the people who DID vote that did not vote republican had voted for the democrat, there would not have been enough electoral college influence to affect the outcome.
You would have needed more non-voters to vote. But a non-voter then was probably a never-voter. There are people that exist who simply don’t care one way or the other who is in charge and you can’t convince those people to go vote. Sure you can try, but in the end it’s the people who did vote who get what they voted for.
Regardless of all of that I find the “you should have voted democrat” argument to be exceptionally stupid. The democrat party is backing a government that I find to be morally reprehensible, as do most Americans, what should have happened is those who were saying “yeah it’s bad but I’m still gonna vote dem” should have just voted for a third party. Why vote against your interests?
So you don’t care at all about what Trump is doing right now. You don’t care that trans people are being explicitly targeted by the federal government.
That’s a weird way to interpret what I said. I care very much about what the current administration is doing. I care very much about my trans friends and the trans community. I’m very aware how things currently are.
My point is simply that it is illogical to blame people who voted third party. Because mathematically even if every single person who did vote third party voted for the democrat the Republican Party still would have won the election.
Democrats want to win? Run on a platform that is actually popular. Don’t support people like Hakeem Jeffries and Kamala Harris who talk down to their would be constituents. Don’t support people like John fetterman who is basically just a Republican posing as a democrat.
So, they refused to support genocide (a position, to be clear, that I agree with) by taking an action (voting third party) or inaction (not voting) that would clearly, and obviously, give a candidate who supported genocide a higher probability of not just winning, but being supported by others with the same opinion?
Voters were put in an invidious position and there were no good options, but there was one option that was clearly worse in every way, and they either directly or indirectly chose to support him.
https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.36LT4WK
How many people decided not to vote? As I mentioned, it wasn’t just third party voters, but also those that chose not to vote. Also, to be clear, voters should not have been put in that position in the first place. However, they were put in that position, and given that there were only two possible outcomes to the presidential election, there really was only one sane choice to make. Unfortunately many chose a different one.
People who knew what would happen if your party didn’t abandon its support for genocide warned you what would happen.
Centrist democrats thought they knew better and charged right ahead with a shit candidate with a single morally reprehensible policy and a timid little bunch of promises no one could trust after the previous 4 years of broken promises.
You were wrong. You lost. You should have listened. You have the opportunity to listen now. You don’t want to. You want to blame people who don’t support the only policy the party won’t back down on.
The problem is, it’s not really the dems who lost, it’s everyone who isn’t a fascist. The party as a whole isn’t really affected by this (and that’s a huge problem), and most of the candidates who lost their elections are part of the party and will just carry on. The way that changes is through pushing for, and supporting, candidates at all levels who support a better agenda, not at the ballot box.
The whole system sucks; be mad about it, push to change it, but I don’t think that those who voted third party, or chose not to vote think this, overall, is better than the results of Harris being in the White House, and they, combined, could have changed this outcome.
Ultimately this election is done, the situation is what it is, and, with a bit of luck, there’ll be elections next year and in '28 where some of this can start to be undone. I wish I was more confident in that.
Everyone who isn’t a fascist lost when the “good” party supported genocide.