298
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2026
298 points (100.0% liked)
Fediverse
41720 readers
167 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, Mbin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Read that again, I didn't make any assumptions about where they are, but I'm not wrong. They fought Kamala like they were getting paid. There's no way Kamala would have been worse, you'll have to invent new lies to make that one stick.
Kamala fought 'herself'.
In USA you need independents to win elections. This has been established fact for many years. Independents outnumber Ds and Rs, at 40% registered (with R30/D30%).
Harris ran an odd campaign, you can see many articles about it... she did a huge amount of Republican outreach, more than I've ever seen or heard of... and even ads, like "He doesn't have to know how you voted" and so on, for months when she was already short on time.
They don't do that in my experience, it's unusual to say the least. Independent votes are their target, much more susceptible for voting D than any R.
Why did they waste all of this time and money on REPUBLICANS?
I know why, and so does Kamala and the DNC. They aren't stupid.
She went against the math and went for her opposition's votes... she took a knee.
If you disagree, if you're familiar with US politics and know of a different reason, please share. I want to be wrong.
TBH, it wasn't that far outside of the basic corporate Dem playbook. Incredibly stupid and definitely lost her the election, for sure, but Dems have been "courting the moderate Republican" (is this "moderate Republican" in the room with us right now?) since Clinton left office - if not longer. It was the most strange and open version of it I've ever seen, but I wonder how much of it was her doing and how much was pushed by the party and the party's campaign managers. Practically all the party ever talks about is how they have to reach across the aisle and convince conservatives to vote for them. We saw it with Hillary as well. They alienated the leftist vote and their own voters to push more conservative policies and lost themselves the election.
Kamala and Walz had a goldmine when they started calling Republicans weird, and they suddenly stopped like 8 days later. If that wasn't the party muzzling them, I don't know what is.
She stuck to all her leftwing policy position and only compromised on 80/20 issues like border security.
All zero of them.
There seems to be some confusion. When I say leftwing policies, I’m referring to liberal democratic policies, universal healthcare, robust public transit, social equity, environmental protections and human rights. You think leftwing means authoritarianism, state violence and the suppression of human rights so I understand why you're upset that Harris doesnt have those policies.
If liberals ever start actually doing any of those, you can start calling them liberal policies. Liberals have fought for none of those as hard as they fought to make sure netanyahu got his genocidin' weapons. Liberals usually find just enough no votes, and if they cared at all about human rights, they wouldn't keep insisting that everyone vote for genocide.
Leftwing means the policies you listed that no centrist has ever wanted. Especially Harris.