I can’t decide whether it would be funnier for her to get confirmed or not. Either way, some group of extremely annoying people is going to be crying about it, so it’s kind of a win-win.

I’ll be Gorbachev. I’ll use the site funds to throw a pizza party and then bring in the lemmy.world mods to manage everything.

• Poison Bow so you can hit them once then run away

• Darkness Axe because it makes me think of the Devil Axe from Fire Emblem

• Nature Whip because vines

• Thunder Hammer because big impact

• Spear of Light feels a common thing

• Earth Shield because sturdiness

• Wind Claws because you gotta be quick and mobile

• Ice Knuckles pack a wallop

• Water Dagger because the only other one left is fire and you don’t want that close to you

• Fire Sword just fits

Haha, look at stinky mouse breath over here.

Don’t worry, I’m not making fun of Hubert. I’m making fun of YOU! GOTTEM!

While theoretically possible, I think it’s a stretch to say that that represents a significant portion of the electorate that isn’t already voting Republican. The only real evidence for that idea is that Clinton and Harris lost, and there are plenty of other explanations for their losses. If you make the claim that specific to where downballot races don’t apply, then there just isn’t enough data to make that a reliable conclusion. It also feels to me like it’s just a talking point to absolve the Democrats of responsibility for running bad campaigns.

Btw with Nevada being called for Jacky Rosen, that makes three female senators winning in states Kamala lost, and there’s Ruben Gallego, a Latino, who’s ahead in Arizona.

I’m Leftists Who Need To Touch Grass

Why hasn’t anarchism been done already (on a large scale)? “It would have, but the tankies keep subverting revolutions and doing states, and they give a bad name to leftists which turns people away from anarchism,” is a pretty convenient answer to that. Plus, by distancing themselves from us and from past revolutions, they can try to pass themselves off as “one of the good ones” while preserving an image of how they want things to be without having to defend any messiness of actually getting there. It’s much simpler to write off projects entirely as not being genuine attempts because the bad people took charge than to actually study them and confront the complex problems they faced.

Damn, saw right through me

All I can say about 2028 is that I look forward to telling libs, “Election? What election? Trump ended democracy forever, remember? There aren’t elections anymore” when they inevitably tell me I have to vote the lesser Hitler.

Are you going to do communism now? As a Hater and Loser, I cannot express how incredibly owned I would be if you did and it turned out the MAGA communists were actually right all along.

Write-in votes tend to be processed slower, I assume. My county has 95% reporting with zero write-ins, but I know it has at least one.

When you run on the status quo, and the status quo sucks, people are gonna turn to whoever manages to present themselves as an alternative.

When you run to the right, and the people who like right-wing policies already have a party giving them the policies they want, they’re not gonna switch parties, and you’re just going to alienate the parts of your base/coalition that are affected by those policies.

Not an effortpost but I think those are two simple, straightforward responses to anyone being like, “How could this possibly happen?”

I’m also running around countering any “she lost because she’s a woman” takes with with Tammy Baldwin in WI and Elissa Slotkin in MI winning despite their states going to Trump, which are two invaluable rhetorical data points, imo.

When you run on the status quo, and the status quo sucks, people are gonna turn to whoever manages to present themselves as an alternative.

When you run to the right on stuff like immigration and the military, and the people who like right-wing policies already have a party waiting on them hand-and-foot, they’re not gonna switch over to you, and you’re just going to alienate the parts of your base/coalition that are affected by those policies.

People are gonna blame the left or say it’s because she’s a woman of color. But Tammy Baldwin, a queer woman, looks set to win Wisconsin, and Elissa Slotkin is ahead by a hair in Michigan, so that narrative is dead in the water.

Don’t blame me, I d for Kodos

Fast and Mad

That podium’s name? Democracy.

I saw someone in another thread cite a list of ongoing genocides that included North Korea. When I asked who they’re even meant to be genociding, they did not respond, but another user answered, “Themselves.”

I was sitting on my couch when I saw a guy on TV steal a podium. It was the most traumatic experience of my entire life

I think it would go to the Senate where there’s a 50-50 split so the Harris would be the deciding vote.

based solely on logic

That’s kind of the problem. You’re drawing conclusions about what people are motivated by and believe based on your assumptions, but these people, like, exist, you can observe them and even interact with them, which allows you to collect evidence which you can compare against the hypothesis that you derived from intuitive assumptions. In reality, most of his supporters don’t fall into either of your proposed categories of “Wanting to replace the American republic with a dictatorship” or “Has never heard of Hitler.” Rather, they don’t believe that Trump is comparable to Hitler. Just because someone has heard of Hitler doesn’t mean that they’ll automatically connect him to Trump.

The media onslaught has been such that it’s almost demonstrably impossible that anybody can not be aware of what Trump said.

That’s nonsense. Many people simply don’t watch the news or engage in politics. It can be hard for politically engaged people like you and me to even comprehend the level of disengagement people can have. Anecdotally, I know a someone, a trans woman I’m in a Discord with, who hadn’t heard about what was happening in Gaza until it came up in conversation a few months ago, she had vaguely heard of October 7, but didn’t pay attention to it because she didn’t think it concerned the US at all, she had no idea that the US was giving any kind of aid to Israel at all, let alone military aid, and she was shocked and appalled to find out about it. You have to understand that there are plenty of people who are just, like, into other stuff, or who avoid the news because it’s stressful and depressing.

Note that HE said these things: they were not (mis)-reported by the media or by his opponents to hurt his campaign.

Yes, but even if someone sees those things, they might interpret them differently than you. Someone who likes Trump, surrounds themselves with people who like Trump, and watch media that supports Trump, is going to come away with much more generous interpretations of what he says as opposed to someone who dislikes Trump, surrounds themselves with people who dislike Trump, and watch media that opposes Trump. Virtually everything Trump says has some layer of ambiguity or plausible deniability, which allows people to assign whatever views they want onto him. For example, when he said he’d “be a dictator on day one,” did he mean, he’s going to overthrow the entire system of government, or did he just mean that he’s going to aggressively pursue the policies he mentioned in the statement? Your argument rests on the assumption that every single person is going to interpret it the first way, but that’s just not true.

I’m not saying any of this to defend Trump or his supporters, but it’s important to know your enemy and have an accurate understanding of them, for the sake of threat modelling if nothing else.