Aceticon

Well, it's that kind of awareness that I would like to see more here.

A lot of people here that just a week ago were making Vance + Couch memes and mindlessly repeating the "Not voting is the same as voting Trump" slogan whilst their candidate wouldn't move a muscle to make herself appealing to the working class are now raging about how the 14 million who didn't vote are to blame rather than the person they uncritically supported and of whom they demanded nothing at all, who was making no effort at all to appeal to anybody but the hard right.

It's those I feel are disconnected from the wider reality of being somebody who is living salary to salary and sees no way out of that for themselves or their children.

The people being squeezed extra hard are ready to grab anything that looks anywhere like a lifebuoy and plenty of those are ignorant and gullible so easily swayed by snake oil peddlers like Trump whilst the ones who are not gullible are probably as distrusting of the Democrats as they are of Trump (and probably thing something along the lines of "they're all liars").

My point is that these are not the people whom a candidate from a party who mainly does what's good for the rich will convince to vote for her solely on the slogan "Not voting for me is voting for Trump" and saying that "Transsexuals will be in danger if Trump is elected" all the while cozying with the hard right in her party like Dick Cheney and claiming to be anti-racist whilst supporting and extremely racist Genocide in Palestine (even if people don't personally care that much about Palestinians, they're still reading the character of the candidate and saying one thing whilst doing the opposite in quite an extreme way is hardly going to make the candidate be trusted when she makes any promises).

(From my own personal political experience, the biggest blindspot of the typical party member - who are generally very tribalist - is the expectation that, as they themselves trust their party leaders completely and hence immediately believe anything those leaders say without even a minimum amount of analysis and checking for logic and consistency, so does everybody else, thus in the absence of a deep down understanding that other people are not starting from a position of unquestionable trust of that party's leader, they're totally lost as to why the party doesn't perform as expected and people aren't as supportive of it as they should given all those great things the leader says).

Lots of people here expect that all those people out there value the same things as they do, feel as they do about various subjects and trust one candidate and distrust the other as as much as they do themselves, hence "logically" (on top of such ridiculous and wholly disconnected axioms) the loss is all the fault of those people for not voting, not of their party's candidate for not trying to appeal to them or of themselves for uncritically supporting a candidate that is not doing do what is needed to win (at times quite the opposite) even though it was right there in front of her and wasn't even that much of a risk.

Unsurprisingly and judging by the results, this was less a Trump win than it was a Democrat loss.

True, I might be projecting what I've seen in my own country as a member of a small left-wing party whilst observing the younger generation in the party who are almost all middle class children of the middle class and who, unlike me, did not experience how it is to grow up in the poor working class (and hearing stories of crushing poverty from my parents who both came from very poor countryside families).

Whilst, thanks to my country being far more fair and equal than the US, I had the opportunity to get a degree from a good University and theoretically am now middle class, all I need to do to remind me of how the working class thinks is talk to the vast cohort of uncles and aunts I have (the younger generation are mainly like me and got degrees) and all I need to do to understand how it is to grow up without my own room in a house in bad state were people counted every cent is to remember my earlier childhood.

But yeah, maybe the truly poor (rather than the recently squeezed types who grew up in middle class families in a proper house and not having to sleep in the living room) in the US are amazingly different from those in my home country and hence my experience and observations are not applicable.

Says the one putting a cross next to the name of a confirmed and active Genocide supporter that even refuses to face Palestinian families all the whilst claiming like an hypocrite that she's anti-racist.

How does complicity in the murder of 17 pages worth of babies less than 1 year old feel?

Did you masturbate yourself when those 2000lb bombs (that the US Military refuses to use themselves because of their massive collateral damage) that Biden sent to Israel whilst you supported him got used to blow up Lebanese neighborhoods killing hundreds of civilian, or was the pleasure of supporting the leader of your tribe no matter what he did enough to give you maximum pleasure?

You know what would have done the most to stop the Holocaust in Palestine? If people like you had turned hard against Biden and the DNC a year ago (with time enough to force him to change his actions well before the election or be replaced by somebody who was different) instead of being subservient little bootlikers to Biden and the DNC guarateing the inevitable Democrat defeat on top of hundreds of thousands of dead with your support.

Keep up preaching your moral superiority from the top of that pile of children's bones - built with the bombs the party leadership you supported like a "good boy" sent to Israel - you think is a moral high-ground.

You would disgust me if I didn't pitty you so much.

You are making crazy assumptions about me.

"I shall never support evil-doers" is a pretty strong drive in my world.

I guess that's not the case in your own world, leading you to expect that it won't happen in large numbers that people will refuse to vote for either racist bully (which is how Arab-Americans probably saw the Democrat Leadership and Trump both) or calous sociopathic supporters of mass murder for the sake of political and economic convenince (which is how the University students risking their degrees to demonstrate against the Genocide all the while being called anti-semitic by Biden probably saw both).

I would say that the 14 million votes' worth of evidence towards it tend indicate that I'm at least partially right.

Well, that's the thing: that's just your character and your opinion.

Clearly other people feel and think differently and a "Trump is Evil vote Harris to stop him" message didn't work with them, otherwise the Democrat Party wouldn't have lost 14 million voters with their strategy of being as bad as Trump in some areas and not much less so in others whilst selling themselves as the "Not Trump" option.

I've had these talks well before the election and indeed back them people might have been right (and me wrong) in their expectation that most people would put "Keep Trump out" above pretty much everything else, including their principles, and vote for a no-hope-offered candidate just to stop Trump.

Turns out that 14 million people clearly didn't got convinced to go vote for a party that offered no actual positive policies, only "We're Not Trump" a characteristic which, as I pointed out above, would only convince to vote Democrat solely to stop him those who think Trump is trully the most horrible thing in existence.

I suppose that outside the bubble in places like Lemmy a lot of people either did not fear Trump anywhere as much as a certain well-off middle class that hangs around here does or thought the Democrats were about as evil as he is (which is were the Palestine situation comes in: in my opinion it convinced a lot of people that the Democrats too are Evil, since it's a pretty natural thing to conclude of those who activelly support the mass murder of children).

The impact of the Democrat choices in Gaza wasn't just about concern with Palestinians, it was also about what it told of the character and morals of the Democrats leadership, which in turn impacts the trust in them and in what they say, which is especially bad for a party with a tradition of lying with half-truths and other such forms of deceit using dialetics trickeries (I suspect with would impact less those using the "just saying anything that comes to his mind independently of it being true or not" technique such as Trump).

A platform of "we're the most moral choice" doesn't work all that well when you're activelly supporting and giving weapons to a genocidal regime mass murdering civilians for their race, including tends of thousands of children and thousands of babies.

Certainly the results don't seem to indicate that "More people like Trump", rather they indicate that even in the face of Trump, fewer people could bring themselves to vote Democrat, which is IMHO a horrible indictment of the Democrat Party.

There aren't 2 major sides in the US, there are 3.

The 3rd side never does any formal campaigning (though there is some grassroots self-organised spreading of its message), often wins as it did this time and yet never controls any power because of how the electoral system works.

One might call the 3rd side the Not Voting Party.

The entire Democrats campaign was negative campaigning against the Republican Party, something which did nothing to take "votes" from the Not Voting Party and then specifically on Palestine, their actions, whilst if one judges them relative to the Republican Party were neutral, very strongly helped the Not Voting Party whose appeal on this was that a "vote" for Not Voting is a vote that doesn't support mass murder of children.

So if you look at it as a 3-sided contest, suddently the Democrat result is easilly explainable: they didn't as much lost to the Republicans as they lost to the Not Voting Party, and in that loss Palestine probably weighed heavilly, both because the Democrats broke some pretty strong principles for a lot of people (there aren't much strongers principles than being against the mass murder of children) thus convincing them to go "Not Voting" and because they, while raging about how Trump was a Fascist, were activelly supporting ethno-Fascists in Israel (the worst kind of Fascism there is) in the middle of a Genocide, they looked like evil hypocrites and weakened their only message trying to capture votes from Not Voting - the whole "Not voting at all is like voting for a Fascist" thing: calling the other guy evil and dangerous hardly helps convince the unconvinced when the people saying it are active supporters of an extremelly violent ethno-Fascism that has already killed thousands of babies and tens of thousands of children.

I'm truly, totally, completely shocked ... that Windows is still being used on the server side.

For avoidance of confusion, I'm talking about New Labour, not traditional Labour.

What would I know, my references are only politics in 4 different countries including being a political party member in two of them, one of which was the UK ...

Or maybe the words do have reasonably fixed global meaning and only British Exceptionalism and their very propaganda-heavy environment makes Britons think their political landscape redefines those words.

Besides, even in Britain you might want to consider the existence of the Corbyn phenomenon (who, if I remember it correctly, got more votes than Starmer did) as well as the Greenparty (whose 1 million vote count went up to 1.4 million in the latest electing) as proof that there is in fact a Left even in England which is not just "What's in it for me?!" Neoliberals cosplaying as "lefties" by throwing some identity politics slogans and below inflation minimum wage raises once in a while, whilst de facto supporting an ethno-Fascist regime half way around the globe currently working on Holocaust v2.

I would say their support for the Neue Nazis and their pro-Finance politics (which I saw up close and personal having worked in that Industry before, during and after the 2008 Crash) by themselves are more than enough to place them firmly in the full-on Right field, possibly even Hard Right.

People whose guiding principle is "The greatest good for the greatest number" don't do what the New Labour types have done and continue to do, even the "pragmatic"/"moderate"/"center" ones.

Keir won because the UK, like the US, has First Pass The Post and the Even More Far Right Party - Reform - divided the votes on the Far Right hence the Tories came second in lots of electoral circles were they usually come first.

Also I've lived all over Europe including the UK and New Labour is plain Right, not Center-Right - they only seem center by comparison with the Tories who migrated to the Far-Right during the Leave Referendum and subsequent Johnson Government.

Similarly by comparison with most of Europe (not the UK) the US is a country with only a plain Right (maybe even hard) and a Far-Right.

Curiously, both New Labour and the Democrat Party support the ethno-Fascist regime in Israel, something which I feel neatly underlines my point as from what I see elsewhere in Europe (with the notable exception of Germany) no Leftwing party supports them.