• PugJesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      14 days ago

      The Dems running a wet rag is a significant failing and they share the blame for fascism coming into power.

      At the same time, that in no way excuses the thought process of any voter who sat by and said, “I don’t like the wet rag. Let’s go with fascism instead!”

    • HowManyNimons@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      “Too radical”

      “Not radical enough”

      “Trump Lite”

      “Didn’t care about Trump voters”

      “Another predicable establishment candidate”

      “We didn’t know her”

      “All she said was she not the other guy”

      “Didn’t expose Trump enough”

      “Joy bullshit! Where are the serious policies?”

      “Elections are about feelings and she didn’t have appeal”

      “Supports the Gaza genocide”

      “Didn’t inspire pro-Israel voters”

      “Failed border czar”

      “Blue MAGA”

      Everyone seems to think they know why Harris lost, and it’s always “didn’t do enough of what I like”. It’s boring and unhelpful.

    • minnow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      14 days ago

      This may come as a surprise to you, but yes, in a democracy the people are to blame for who gets elected.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        14 days ago

        In a functional democracy, the candidates would run on things people want. Instead, both parties cater to what the elites want.

        The difference between Republicans and Democrats is whether they pay lip service to these policies or not (then Democrats find a way to not pass whatever that policy is, whether it’s with a rotating villain, the parliamentarian, keeping the filibuster, etc).

        • minnow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          14 days ago

          No? No. Democracy, functional or not, has no direct determining power on what candidates cater to. What democracy does is select the winning candidate, regardless of who the candidate caters to.

          We may be a flawed democracy with candidates that cater to the elites, but we’re still a democracy and we still pick the winner.

          • jonne@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            14 days ago

            If democracy doesn’t work for the majority of people, and your party runs on ‘rescuing’ that same democracy while at the same time villinaising the people that do want to improve the people’s economic conditions, you’re not going to be winning elections.

            If you want to rescue democracy, you need to show that democracy can work for people, it’s the same mistake Weimar Germany made.

            • magic_lobster_party@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              14 days ago

              It’s hard to elect one person that works for the majority of the people. The majority of the people aren’t a homogenous group. Not everybody agrees on which policies are the best.

              • jonne@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                14 days ago

                There’s a huge range of policies that poll in the 80-90% range that neither party wants to touch because they upset the donor class.