this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
728 points (97.3% liked)
People Twitter
5391 readers
1890 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, he's up across the board in all the swing state polls. When you are up on points and are looking to run out the clock, you run prevent defense. Its the same reason he's not going to take another debate; that would help Harris. Reduce surface area, reduce exposure, don't give opportunities for mistakes.
I'm not sure why you're getting down voted, you're right. Going strictly by polls and ignoring registrations (which are trending favorable for R), strategy, finance, early voting, etc. Trump was neck and neck with Harris up to the debate. The debate say the sharpest shift toward Harris. Afterwards, he has been sticking to Golf and Rallies of his most loyal supporters, keeping him away from the general public. That put the polls back to a toss up.
If he did another debate, he's on display to everyone again and that won't go his way. Even if Harris fucks up, he's still a fascist in decline. His campaign knows he needs to stay in safe spaces until the election is over
They claimed Trump is up in all the swing state polls, but five minutes on Google shows that's just not true. People can read, and if you lie to them, they'll downvote you.
Lemmings prefer their echo chamber, where if they just vote hard enough, they'll be able to blame people who confronted them with evidence when they lose.
How the hell are people changing something in politics if they don't vote?
Edit: incoming copy paste in 4, 3 , 2, ...
Its called rhetoric. Its the job of changing hearts and minds and its how you win or lose elections. Lemmy has disproportionately taken an abusive and diminishing stance to anyone who would bring criticism to the Democratic party, as if acknowledging that criticism in some way diminishes the Democratic parties chances in November. The perfect example of this is the "Any Blue Will Do"/ "Blue Maga" campaign that the majority of Lemmy engaged in while Joe Biden was candidate. There were bans' about it. It was a whole thing. Short summary is that any kind of posting or discussing of Joe Biden's adequacy as candidate was branded as "right-wing schilling" or it was suggested that by presenting things like historical analysis of polling data, the putting Biden's numbers in that context, you were engaging in "disinformation". And it wasn't just on Lemmy. This was happening in mainstream new's as well. For example, Whoopi Goldberg said she would "...vote for Joe Biden even if he (shit) his pants on stage..". Another, more Lemmy relevant version of this discussion is happening now, where some popular posters are effectively disregarding/ dismissing the Gazan genocide because they perceive any criticism of Harris' stance on the matter as diminishing to her electoral chances.
So we have to ask "What are the impacts of this rhetorical approach?" Does it bring people to my side and help my cause or does it hurt it? Its obvious from the first round of ABWD/ BM under Biden as candidate, that no amount of apologism is convincing to a cohort who perceives themselves as having a valid criticism of a candidate. If anything, this rhetorical approach only further distances people from a candidate (as indicated by Biden's polling post debate). To put this in more specific terms, if you say "I don't care if a candidate shits their pants on stage, you still need to vote for this guy" when the criticism is "This guy is not capable of running a successful campaign and is clearly going to lose to Trump", you cause your "team" to lose voters. Likewise, and more salient, its not convincing to some for whom a (current administration) policy of funding "the burning of children alive in hospitals" {ABSOLUTE trigger warning. Its Sky News, so its not like a jump scare, but for Christ sake, Israel is burning children alive. No one should ever have to bear witness to that.} is a bridge too far to say "But Trump would be worse". Trump being bad isn't a convincing enough argument to vote for a pants-shitter: Whoopi gathered exactly 0 voters to Biden with that rhetorical approach. And to extend that further, quite simply, Trump being worse isn't a good enough response to convince someone to vote for a candidate that supports the burning of children alive.
And so this is the impasse that we're in. Whatever disease has stricken Lemmy (and Reddit, and Twitter, and main stream media, and on and on; its not unique to Lemmy), the majority have taken a rhetorical approach that is basically performative. The brigading, the down-voting, the trolling, is like its mostly about absolving themselves of any wrong doing with around the fact that not only is their approach to rhetoric ineffective, but it is directly undermining the performance of their proffered candidate. The downvoters here, they don't appear interested in helping Kamala get elected. They aren't interested in a rhetorical approach that grows the base. They want to diminish and ignore the legitimate criticism that this candidate is as pro-genocide as the incumbent, and at that that level of being pro-genocide is at least sufficient to spark a flaming hot war in the middle east. Its a kind of material denial-ism of reality that I really only thought possible by members of the MAGA cult, but because its so similar, I think that the term Blue MAGA is completely appropriate. And this reactionary approach to rhetoric that has taken hold: Its causing Kamala Harris to lose this election. It accepts the rightward shift Harris has made in these past few weeks. A rightward shift that took her from increasing her lead on DJT to losing it across all swing states. This movement accepts that because they are so scared that acknowledging the issue the candidate has will bring her downfall. But actually, by not engaging with the issues; by not demanding better from the candidate, she has been allowed to enter into a weaker, more vulnerable position electorally.
If the criticisms are legitimate, and I think supporting the wholesale slaughter of a people is a legitimate critisim, you need to actaully address that issue head on. Burying your head in the sand, denying the issue, and as an example, a quote one from one Lemmy's most frequent posters (their words, not mine):
Makes my point for me. The goal of this kind of rhetoric isn't to convince anyone. Its to wash ones hands.
Addendum:
Ahh I see your edit now.
Of course you weren't actually engaging in good faith. But thanks for putting your shame on display.
This is a very reasoned argument, I don't understand the downvotes. Nothing said here is inflammatory or incorrect, it's a pretty valid take on how Lemmy reacts to things they don't want to be true, including legitimate criticisms of Harris. A lot of people seem to think anyone saying "but wait" means they're for Trump, even if that's not the case. I mean I get it, he was a disaster and it's crazy the collective amnesia that half this country seems to have about it, Harris will assuredly be better than him, including with Gaza. It still doesn't mean we should just unilaterally ban asking the Dems to do more, even if there are some that attempt to argue such things in bad faith.
I will say "vote hard enough" could work if we actually did it, but only way may be to have auto registration at 18. But I agree, Dems need to stop courting the ever decreasing "undecideds" and actually represent something left of center-right.
Voting is still valid though, a lot of us on the left seem to disdain voting as useless and only want to go with rhetoric, but it's literally how MLKJ got the most done that was enforceable. Civil disobedience to get attention, million man marches to register the vote and getting people to the polls no matter what was in the way. If we ever actually did that maybe we could get some more lefty candidates on bigger stages.
personally I don't see why people use the platform with downvotes visible lol, that being said a lot of the statements are valid, but I also believe that it will be worse with Trump as well. I mean he did meet with Netanyahu and tell him to just get the war over with and kill them all, and he has shown solid support of the war. Up to and including saying that a ceasefire is worthless and counterproductive to victory. He's all but said he wants the genocide to continue on both sides. I'm firmly concerned that if he gets in, his way of "solving the issue" will be sending the US military to resolve the issue, and that's not something the US needs right now with the tension between other countries already high.
and before anyone says he can't do that, remember the last officially declared war was WW2 and that the standard tactic is the president (who is commander and chief) sends troops in for his maximum allowed days, then he turns around and says to Congress "so are you going to help our troops or not?" which moreorless forces their hand at supporting the war.
Yeah I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Polls are a response to voter sentiment. Maybe you can break down what you meant for me?
Did I claim that? I don't think I claimed that. If you could show me or quote me making that claim, I would appreciate it.
I mean Lemmy is a collective of people. I don't think its wrong to anthropomorphize groups of people (because they are, well.. people), and you might be arguing (not quite sure here) that I shouldn't' be giving human attributes of behavior to groups of humans, because fundamentally they have different behavioral models. That's an interesting argument, and more than happy to have that if thats what you are saying here. But to be clear, I'm not arguing that a herd of cows has a collective opinion on genocide. And "generalities are seldom accurate", I'm not sure how even to address that. The entire modern world is basically predicted on the assumption that although there is variation or noise in most systems, when you aggregate them, they collapse to the mean. So I'm not sure what to do with your statement "generalities are seldom accurate". That seems dismissive of a couple hundred years of the scientific method to evaluating evidence.
Again, I don't think I said that. If you could quote me directly, I think that would go a long ways in this discussion.
Ok. Thanks. Have a nice rest of your day.
No, he isn't up in all the swing state polls. Only in some of them. It took me less than five minutes to find that you were wrong, because of course you were wrong. There are many polls out there, and you tried to claim that they all showed one thing, when of course they didn't.
(If you want to argue that your preferred polls show something, you can make that argument. And we could debate the reliability of those particular polls. At least then we could start with facts and disagree about how to interpret them.)
RCP:
https://www.realclearpolling.com/elections/president/2024/battleground-states
Or you could look at, you know, literally any other political news outlet. They are all showing basically the same thing.
Not sure why this is getting down voted. It's a pretty damn good assessment imo.
Lemmy is generally allergic to anything that isn't cheer leading for Dems.
Instead of asking whether the claim was actually true (and it wasn't), you decided that Lemmy is packed full of Dems (when it's not). That's kind of awkward, my friend.
I think there are plenty of instances that aren't, and those don't include the hyper tanky/toxic ones. The big instances have tended to skew neoliberal though.
Sure, there are some exceptions. But the reality on which we sit is that Lemmy is a very, very small community. Its all basically one community right now because there isn't really enough membership to support balkanization and still get useful engagement. I think I'm centrally arguing in this thread that we're "beyond neo-liberalism" in whatever the central tendency of Lemmy has become. To pervert a Big Lebowski quote, "Say what you will about neoliberalism, at least its an ethos".
There is something that has happened on Lemmy (and elsewhere) that has taken us beyond a dispute over political idealogy. The movement we see on display here isn't political arguments; its a form of team identity not at all dis-similar to the MAGA movement. Like, check out Michael Shure's interviews with MAGA/ Trump supporters. Like, once you scratch past the surface, it becomes clear there is no coherent ideology under the hood. MAGA is just as much a reaction to how people feel socially, as it is a reaction based on how people feel politically. That movement is predicated on belonging to a team, and having a identity that shapes your politics. I'm making the argument that Lemmy's allergic reaction to introspection/ criticism of their proffered team, is not at all dissimilar to the shape and dimensions of how Trump supporters form their views. They're on a team. You are here to cheer and if you aren't hear to just sing the praises of my team, you are my enemy. Whatever is happening online, and in America, is beyond politics at this point.
Absolutely. The othering is a symptom of this tribal politics-as-team-sport too. "They are bad because they are tanky/neolib/whatever". Leads to lazy argument. Sure there are people who are dogmatic and rude, who you'll probably end up blocking, but if we all gave each other a bit of grace the quality of discourse would surely improve.
Reality skews left. The technoliterate and those who inhabit more obscure internet forums, more so. It's a bit like going to an FFA meeting and spouting off some ignorant shit that is generally leftist like "humans are meant to be vegetarian" then, when you get shouted down and proven wrong, saying "wow this place is so conservative."...yeah, it is more likely to lean one way AND you are spouting off nonsense. You would get hate.