"We warned you," Muslim voters tell Kamala Harris after she goes down in flames : usa

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 22 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Really not the right take to say "we lost the Election because of Muslims not voting for Kamala".

It was not just Muslims who did not turn out to vote. It was a large list of different demographics. Some demographics were explicitly shown to having turned out more in order to vote for trump. Of any demographic, Muslims and Arabs were the groups who had probably the best reasons not to vote (islamophobia on both sides and our nation actively propagating a genocide of Arabs regardless of the political party in power)
While we're focusing on the demographics which did or didn't show, it's still a massive issue that the majority of Americans don't vote, period.
focusing on this failure as a point of anger and choosing only to blame a group you have no control over has zero value. You either need to either put your eyes forward to prepare for what comes next, or analyze what you could have done better in order to improve your own actions for next time. If there is ever a time for stoicism, it is now, right before the oncoming crisis.

[–] dontgooglefinderscult@lemmings.world 21 points 4 days ago (2 children)

It is amazing Muslims ever voted for Dems after 9/11 proved the entire democratic party leadership was just as bigoted as Republicans. Hopefully Dems go the way of the whig's and we can get some new parties.

[–] The_Che_Banana@beehaw.org 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I thought the same when the nut jobs of the Tea Party started tearing the Rs apart....guess what happened?

[–] dontgooglefinderscult@lemmings.world 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The thing is the tea party was the same as the Republican party. Both were nationalist ultra capitalists that believed money should buy power. Democrats are the same, really.

Any left wing thought, is entirely different from either of the major parties. There's not really a way to pacify it.

[–] The_Che_Banana@beehaw.org 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Dems are the party of complicity.

The tea party though gave validation to the conspiracy theorists and unmasked the supremists.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works -3 points 4 days ago

And now Gaza is saved!

... oh. Oh no.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world -5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

They sure showed her. We’ll find out if they made the right choice soon enough.

[–] GlacialTurtle@lemmy.ml 26 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Maybe Democrats shouldn't have sent Bill Clinton to talk about how Hamas forced Israel to kill civilians and that's why you need to not care about Dems facilitating genocide, or maybe Richie Torres could have not spent the last weeks of the campaign feuding with Hasan Piker on Twitter over Israel as he was also in Michigan to speak to Arab and Muslim voters.

I guess we already saw if they made the right choice.

[+] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world -8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

Exactly how is allowing Trump a second term better?

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Understanding why the Harris campaign's strategy of moving to the right to try to court Republican voters, instead of moving to the left with popular progressive policies, was a demonstrable failure is not an endorsement of Trump.

A trump term is significantly worse. It's straight up fascism. Which is why it's so frustrating how terrible Harris' Campaign was that she depressed voter turnout by like 14 million people. And for what? Instead of galvanizing support from everyone with a progressive platform, her neoliberal platform only accomplished normalizing right-wing disinformation like on immigration.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world -2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

So we agree that the choices at the polls were bad and worse for Palestinians. I’m simply saying by not choosing bad, they ended up with worse.

I completely understand feeling sick over the decision, but did they really trust the rest of the US to make the right decision for them?

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I agree that the rational and correct choice was still Harris. I voted for Harris and told others to vote too.

If you're talking about the turnout of the general public, my point is that running on being the 'lesser evil' and moving to the right in an attempt to get republican votes is not a successful method to motivate tens of millions of Americans to get out and vote, even if the greater evil is Fascism. Americans are overworked and uneducated. It's the campaigns responsibility to motivate them to vote by offering them policies that will improve their daily livelihood. It's ultimately on the campaign to earn those votes. The data is clear that progressive policies are popular with everyone, that includes Republicans and independents on top of Democrats. The decision to take those voters for Granted without offering them enough on the policy front, and instead move to the right, was a calculated decision by the campaign that failed.

Polls on campaign messaging

How to Win a Swing Voter in Seven Days

“The View” Alternate Universe: Break From Biden in Interviews, Play the Hits in Ads

Polls on policy

How Trump and Harris Voters See America’s Role in the World

Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college

Democrats should run on the popular progressive ideas, but not the unpopular ones

Here Are 7 ‘Left Wing’ Ideas (Almost) All Americans Can Get Behind

Finding common ground: 109 national policy proposals with bipartisan support

Progressive Policies Are Popular Policies

Tim Walz's Progressive Policies Popular With Republicans in Swing States

If you're talking specifically about the turnout of Arab/Muslim voters in swing states, I discussed that here. Harris' decision to take those votes for granted by refusing to break from Biden was again a calculated decision that did not pay off. All the data showed that if she did break from Biden and call for an Arms Embargo, which is very popular, she would have gotten significant gains.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Good question. If you have two parties ostensibly desiring office, and both will commit genocide, you punish the one that is ostensibly relying on you as their base until they stop the genocide. It's a game of chicken with that party. And the Democrats lost that game. They thought "we will still get what we want even though we are genociders" and they didn't.

So now. They will have to stop being genociders if they want to win next time. It would have been 4 years of genocide either way, but now the people have shown that if you want to win next time, you need to not be genociders.

[–] dRLY@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Seems correct to me. The folks that are oversimplifying shit saying that Dems were still a "better option to fascism" are ignoring that they have been seemingly doing everything to enable fascism. Just like how the Dems and their media mouthpieces kept using the rhetoric of "Trump winning is the death of freedom," but then were loudly retracting all of it when the first shooter made the assassination attempt. You don't retract and well-wish someone that you truly believe is "the death of freedom" or otherwise "the next Hitler." (I still hold that at best Trump is a Mussolini caricature personally, and Netanyahu is clearly more the "Hitler.")

Just like how they whitewash the history of civil rights leaders that were various levels of leftists and called out the white liberals/moderates. Or how they (and the Republicans) steal leftist/revolutionary words and phrases to paint themselves as "the party of the working people." It is all surface level bullshit, they have no intentions of actions beyond words and photo-ops. Both parties bowed to their IOF masters and do very fascist actions in suppressing those that are against genocide.

[–] Triton420@mander.xyz 2 points 4 days ago

You think it’s going to take 4 years to finish off Palestine? Or are you including Iran and Yemen? Because I’d imagine israel will be done with Gaza by February

[–] Turbonics@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 days ago

Donald "Bill Clinton" Trump?

[–] pete_link@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago

No, there is no "right" choice here, if you mean something that is going to benefit Palestine and Gaza in the short term. The vast majority of those who voted against Harris knew that Trump won't be better, but they could not go along with a candidate actively involved in genocide. Plus, they wanted to let the Democrats know that they would pay a price for their treachery. As it turned out, the pro-Palestine vote against Harris had a very clear effect in Michigan and Wisconsin, but it can't be blamed for her defeat.

[+] WashedOver@lemmy.ca -3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] dontgooglefinderscult@lemmings.world 20 points 4 days ago

Liberals attempt to not fantasize about genocide: impossible edition.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 18 points 4 days ago

United States | News & Politics