Ah yes, there’s no reason people would avoid voting for a cop president after a widely publicized lynching.
The reality is that nobody knew who the hell she was. Only knew a few older people who liked her during the primaries and that’s because they have all the time in the world to watch CNN 24/7 and get familiar with the candidates.
Then why did she get trounced by fucking Klobuchar ?
It’s the third post by the OP - haha.
For the record, my argument here is not “she should have beaten Biden in 2020” but “she was a much better candidate than the point at which she dropped indicated, and for instance is substantially better than Klobuchar."
lol. Someone ask them why Klobuchar was more popular
They’re really telling on themselves with stuff like this. They really have no understanding of politics or politicians. To them, she’s just a token who ticks a bunch of boxes, they can’t imagine anyone would dislike her based on policy.
Hillary lost because she was too white and too much of a servant of the patriarchal bourgeois order for anyone to want to turn out for her. Kamala may have the same problem, though liberals seem to be pushing the “Kamala super progressive” lie.
It’s definitely not that Dem voters would prefer the demsoc candidates that at least give a pretense of caring about people instead of just doing what the Republicans would do
Yup, just too ‘woman’, which is why Elizabeth Warren was comfortably in second or third for almost the entire race and only tanked after she went
voters, extremely shy from Hillary’s loss, were afraid that [Kamala] was too Black
Yes because if Hillary’s loss indicated anything it’s that a black person can’t win. This is definitely a coherent analysis.
They were so triggered by her loss in the 2016 general they forgot all about her loss in the 2008 primary
I feel that only the democratic party gives half a fuck about “middle [America]” and the people who are waffling between the two candidates. I’m sure you could get a fuck ton of votes doing something, anything popular instead of talking about bullshit Marvel slop quotes to try and convince someone whose high fructose corn syrup coated neurons couldn’t conjure a coherent ideology any faster than infinite monkies could.
It’s a dogshit analysis.
someone whose high fructose corn syrup coated neurons couldn’t conjure a coherent ideology any faster than infinite monkies could.
Wow, that’s brutal.Democratic party analysts, either because they’re incompetent or because they’re always looking for ways to triangulate to the right (or possibly both) imagine that anyone who is not a loyal member and consistent voter of either party exists precisely in the center of the Overton window.
To be fair, infinite monkeys would produce a coherent ideology very fast
just how infinite are we talking
Very
under my breath jesus christ…
Why are we still doing “too black” as an excuse after having a black president for 8 years?
My theory: I think framing like this is an attempt to create infighting on the left. I remember her doing poorly because she’s center right and wasn’t the most well known center right dem in the 2020 race. Notably Biden had similar positions and was much more widely known.
Because Obama was a one time novelty, let’s not act as if racism over
Nobody is doing that friend. It’s just pointing out how democrats are reheating 2020 idpol arguments rather than dealing with the actual reason she got 1 percent in those primaries
No, racism isn’t over, I get that. But I also don’t think Obama is a onetime novelty. I think he offered enough, well at least the illusion of enough, material benefit to sway voters. The biggest problem Kamala had in 2020, and even now, was that she really didn’t have anything to offer voters to set her apart from the field.
Her lack of charisma is very apparent. Libs just won’t admit she is unlikable because they are scared the truth will hurt her chances.
Racism isn’t over but democrats officially announced it is over, so the claim from the same people that Kamala was “too black” after 8 years of black president they all loved sound at least very weird.
it’s wild to me that anyone tries to argue that normal people vote based on how they think a candidate will “appeal to the middle of the country”. have these people ever talked to a human in real life that they weren’t paying?
Small brain: “I’m going to vote for the candidate I like.”
Pundits with pundit brain and regular people with pundit brain…
no the closest they get is reading polling data
They have read the concept of polling data
I agree, Hillary was too black.
Walking into the White House like
Yes, that’s the reason she had literally no supporters except those K-hive freaks.
I have a leftie telling me that because Cheney endorsed KH , we should take that as evidence that she is a bad candidate and NOT AN ANTIFASCIST.
I kept pointing out that Patton and Stalin invaded Germany and HATED each other. “Ally of convenience” is not a friend. As long as no concessions are made, the best thing you can do is let two enemies destroy each other.
After the main danger is vanquished, we excise our “once and future” enemies the neocons.
I saw a comment on an .ml instance post about this (maybe a .worlder) saying “WOULD YOU HATE DOGS JUST BECAUSE HITLER LOVED DOGS???”
Well, no. Nor would I if Cheney loved dogs. If Hitler endorsed my political candidate, however…
Patton and Stalin invaded Germany and HATED each other. “Ally of convenience” is not a friend.
Ask this person what they think of Molotov-Ribbentropf
and Patton regretted it every day. Ike was the one really pushing for helping and working with the USSR.
And Patton wanted to recruit the Germans and take the lead in Operation Unthinkable lmao
His comments coupled with slapping that soldier earned him a demotion. Really poor example.
George “we fought the wrong enemy” Patton
Those who do not learn history are doomed to… clown themselves on social media.
First as shitpost, then as meme.
Dumbest thing I’ve read all week.
They really typed that out
That would be the one upshot of Kamala winning, trolling libs with “huh turns out voters will vote for a woman guess that wasn’t the problem in prior elections.”
I’ll give libs this. They are right that this country is rabidly misogynistic.
Lib denial is deeper than the Mariana Trench. If Kamala wins - within days there were be op-eds opining the 2016 tragedy. It’s a shame voters weren’t really for a female candidate then. Hillary could have and should have won. And it would have been an era of kittens, puppies, rainbows, unicorns, joy, and neoliberal wonderment.
They will flip it around as the US becoming less misogynistic since 2016. I can see it now. Nothing has actually changed (except, you know, losing abortion), but libs will act like they were the vanguard for women’s issues this whole time.
Ugh, I can see it now.
: “We did it! After enough concessions we finally convinced the dumb backward masses into voting for a woman president! It feels great to have educated them! Tailism? What’s that?”
If in the sequel their interests turn out to be uninteresting and their power turns out to be impotence, either this is the fault of dangerous sophists, who split the indivisible people into different hostile camps, or the army was too brutalized and deluded to understand that the pure goals of democracy were best for it too, or a mistake in one detail of implementation has wrecked the whole plan, or indeed an unforeseen accident has frustrated the game this time. In each case the democrat emerges as spotless from the most shameful defeat as he was innocent when he went into it, fresh in his conviction that he must inevitably be victorious, taking the view that conditions must ripen to meet his requirements, rather than that he and his party must abandon their old standpoint.
From Marx’s 18 Brumaire: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch03.htm
