#Time for democrats to start saying this was a

[alixezae]

Tw: r4pe mentions, sexual harassment, many more

If you vote for Trump know that he makes racist comments, he is a convicted felon, he cheated on his wives also Trump has exacerbated racial hatred in the country since he started his 2016 campaign falsely declaring that Mexican undocumented immigrants are "r4pists"

Trump also falsely claimed that Haitian immigrants are eating the pets of Americans in Springfield,Ohio in an October 7 continues down there!

Even on the website of U.S news staff put him as a bad president

There's history of Trump being accused of sexual misconduct back in 1970s

Jessica Leeds told the New York times in 2016 that, in the late 1970s, Trump, who was a stranger to her, reached his hand up her skirt and grabbed her breasts on a flight to new York. She said he "was like an octopus"

Ivana Trump, Trump's first wife, accused him in a divorce deposition of r4ping her in a fit of rage in 1989, when they were married. She later said that she hadn't meant in a "literal or criminal sense"

Kristin Anderson, a photographer and former model, told the Washington Post in 2016 that Trump sat next to her at a nightclub in the early 1990s and reached under her skirt

There are so many more : 19thnews.org

Trump’s continuously repeated falsehoods about his record as president have convinced many people who find him to be a horrible person, but nevertheless support him because of what Trump says about his term in office.

“Yes, I know, he’s 78, he’s not as sharp as he used to be, he lies all the time, he has cheated on his wives, he makes racist comments, he is a convicted felon, and he tried to carry out a coup after he lost the last elections. But he was a good president,” a Republican friend told me recently. (On the news btw)

On the economy, Trump left the biggest deficit in U.S. history.

Under Trump, the national debt grew much faster than during his successor Joe Biden. Like most populists, Trump cut taxes and spent as if there were no tomorrow, leaving a national debt that will have to be paid by our children and grandchildren for decades.

The national debt rose by almost $7.8 trillion to $28 trillion during Trump’s four years in office, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The debt has kept growing since, but at a significantly slower pace.

As for the country’s economic growth, the U.S. economy under Trump grew by an overall 6.8%. By comparison, it grew by 8.4% in the Biden years.

On the jobs’ front, Trump left office with 3 million fewer jobs than there were when he entered the White House. Granted, that was largely because of the pandemic, but Biden has added nearly 16 million jobs since then.

Granted, inflation was lower under Trump than under Biden. The pandemic disrupted supply chains from China and made consumer prices soar in America in 2021 and 2022. But inflation has since fallen to 2.4%, close to its pre-pandemic levels.

A weakened democracy

On democracy, Trump undermined democratic institutions and the rule of law like no other American president in recent memory. He is the first U.S. president I can remember who tried to stage a coup d’etat to stay in power.

Trump falsely claims to this day that he won the 2020 election, even after more than 60 courts and the conservative-majority Supreme Court found his objections to be unsubstantiated.

Then, he tacitly tried to incite rebellion on Jan. 6, 2021, when he waited for hours before trying to stop a pro-Trump mob from invading the U.S. Capitol in hopes of overturning the election result. He continues to praise the violent rioters who injured more than 100 police officers, calling them “patriots” and government “hostages.”

Emboldening dictators

On foreign policy, Trump weakened America’s standing in the world by picking fights with the closest U.S. allies while at the same time embracing dictators such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un.

Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord and threatened to abandon the U.S.-European NATO military alliance. Trump’s threats to leave NATO significantly damaged the group’s unity and probably encouraged Putin to plan his 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Trump deserves credit for the Abraham Accords to help establish diplomatic ties between Israel and some Arab countries. But if you look at the world in terms of superpower-led blocs, Trump left power in 2020 with a weaker Western alliance and a stronger China and Russia.

Reproductive rights

On abortion, Trump appointed three conservative Supreme Court judges who played a crucial role in overturning Roe v. Wade, a ruling that had made abortions legal in the country for nearly 50 years. As a result, some states banned abortions, and some women reportedly died because they could not get proper medical care to end their pregnancies.

More hatred

On crime, hate crimes increased by 28% during Trump’s term and hate-motivated murders, mainly committed by white supremacists, reached their highest number in 28 years, according to FBI statistics.

Trump has exacerbated racial hatred in the country since he started his 2016 campaign falsely declaring that most Mexican undocumented immigrants are “rapists” and are “bringing crime” to America. In 2017, he said that there were “very fine people” among white supremacists and the anti-racism demonstrators who were protesting against them in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Trump’s racist statements have worsened since. He recently falsely claimed that Haitian immigrants are eating the pets of Americans in Springfield, Ohio. In an Oct. 7 radio interview, Trump said that unauthorized migrants who committed violent crimes have “bad genes,” a language reminiscent of Adolf Hitler’s efforts to dehumanize Jews.

Also, in 2020, the last year of the Trump presidency, there was the biggest one-year increase in the number of murders since the 1960s, according the Politifact fact checking website. In addition to the pandemic and the George Floyd riots, Democrats attribute the 30% rise in murders to the relaxation of gun control laws under Trump.

False border promises

On immigration, Trump never completed the border fence nor got Mexico to pay for it, as he had promised in his 2016 campaign. Trump now claims to have built much of the current 654 miles of border wall, but most of it was already in place and repaired or upgraded during his years in office, according to Customs and Border Protection data.

On the COVID-19 Pandemic, Trump scorned face masks and at one point asked Americans to inject themselves with disinfectant to fight the virus. Scientists say many of the 400,000 Covid deaths during his presidency could have been averted if he had exhorted people to get vaccinated.

The list of Trump administration failures goes on and on. So if you are planning to vote for Trump because of something specific he has promised, and you are willing to believe a compulsive liar, go ahead. But please don’t tell me he was a good president: he was a disaster on virtually all fronts.

This story was originally published October 11, 2024 10:12 AM.

I can continue.

America is officially fucked. If any of you voted for that funky ass orange, bowling ball looking ass, racist ass, rapist ass, felon ass, misogynist ass, homophobic ass bitch, please unfollow and block me with all disrespect.

[mesetacadre]

I think it's fair to say there is interest in an explanation of trotskyism from a marxist-leninist perspective. Information on what exactly Trotsky did and what trotskyism is nowadays is complicated to come by unless you know a trotskyist willing to be straightforward or someone involved in organizing with these types of communists. So instead of answering these asks without much prior research or preparation, I decided to wait until I was freer, without too many academic and political responsibilities. Full disclosure, the portion of this post on Trotsky himself is essentially (though not completely) a summary of Moissaye J. Olgin's Trotskysim: Counter-revolution in Disguise, which gets into the basics of trotskyism as well as Trotsky's actual position on his contemporary issues, such as the Chinese revolution, or the CPUSA which I don't get into here but I highly recommend reading. The second portion, about modern trotskyism and how it got to be present in the countries that it is, is shorter and more based on my own experiences organizing with trotskyists as well as reading what they have to say, and conversations with much more knowledgeable comrades of mine.

What is trotskyism?

Succinctly, it is the form of left opposition to marxism-leninism that has enjoyed the most spread, spearheaded by Leon Trotsky and his criticisms of the USSR.

Trotsky himself, despite what his self-aggrandizing History of the Russian Revolution leads one to believe, was never a bolshevik, much less a leninist. The second Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party¹ (RSDLP) of 1903, which sought to establish the bases of what would become the bolshevik party and the CPSU, saw the start of the menshevik-bolshevik split, on the issue of what the party should become and how it should be organized.

The bolsheviks, already lead by Lenin, defended the principles of organization that were later systematized into democratic-centralism. These principles were the freedom of discussion until the party decided by a majority vote during a Congress, Conference or other organ for discussion, a position on any issue. After this, unity of action should follow, and the comrades who held the minority opinion, even if they still disagree, should submit to the collectively agreed-upon position, and act on that line an all party matters. This is to ensure that the party of the proletariat, representing the interests of one class, is not divided, and is able to express that single will. Otherwise, its action is crippled by unending debates kept alive by a minority. Consequently, these principles also lead to the intolerance towards fractions within the party.

Trotsky, who aligned himself with the mensheviks, opposed these principles, instead advocating for a complete liberty of individual action of comrades in the party. He called Lenin "the great disorganizer of the party" over this. This is the first great pillar of trotskyism, a rejection of democratic-centralism in favor of the creation of endless cliques and fractions within the party, which he did multiple times within the CPSU until his expulsion.

The second great pillar of the trotskyist opposition that arose before the October Revolution was of defeatism regarding the peasantry. Especially after the defeat of the 1905 revolution, Trotsky was convinced that a successful revolution in a country such as the Russian Empire, where the peasantry was a majority and usually held reactionary positions due to various economic determinations², was impossible because these reactionary elements would inevitably overthrow a worker's dictatorship. While already an excessively defeatist position among other communists, and certainly not a bolshevik position, this belief did not change whether it was 1905, 1915, or 1935. Up to the end, even once the USSR had beaten the armed intervention of 14 armies and had transformed the peasantry by eliminating the class of kulaks and collectivizing agriculture, Trotsky's opposition to socialism in one country relied on the perception of an insurmountable reactionary class constantly on the edge of an overthrow. This is what the "permanent revolution", a term that when used by trotsky has nothing to do with the same term used by Marx and Engels, actually means. A defeatism so deep, that only the practically simultaneous and global victory of the proletariat is possible, all without party unity!

This also negates other leninist positions such as the weakest chain theory, crucial to understanding imperialism, or the necessity of a communist party altogether. Since socialism in one country will inevitably fail, Trotsky told workers that an armed insurrection once the conditions was right was pointless, and that they should instead work for a "worldwide revolution", something that's in practice impossible because it would necessitate a synchronization of the conditions necessary for a revolution in every single imperialist country at once. Unequal development is an unbreakable rule of the imperialist stage of capitalism, and the notion of a worldwide revolution or even a revolution among a significant portion of imperialist countries was already refuted by Lenin in 1915.

So how did Trotsky reconcile his defeatist dogmatism with a living and thriving proof against it in the form of the USSR? As the third great pillar of trotskyism, he insisted by every possible avenue that the USSR wasn't actually socialist, the reasons for which changed constantly. Some issues were already recognized by the CPSU and worked against, and Trotsky exaggerated them. He expressed concern about the Central Committee replacing the party itself, he expressed concern about bureaucratization, the NEP and its lack of collectivization, the excessive speed of collectivization in the 30s, and other criticisms which, when taken together, show only contradiction and a single consistent position: that any attack against the USSR was legitimate.

And it's not like he was being ignored in the USSR, he simply always chose the most incendiary and anti-leninist methods for criticism. In the 13th Congress of the RCP(b) of 1924, among other things, the resolution that was approved recognized many flaws in the party coming out of the NEP, but that these issues weren't actively dangerous and could be solved: bureaucratization in some areas, excessive departmentalization, some influence of bourgeois elements. This resolution was passed unanimously, which included Trotsky. Immediately after the Congress, he published a pamphlet called The New Course, in which he lambasts this Congress and the entire party as having degenerated. In this pamphlet he also places students as the "barometer of the revolution", instead of workers themselves. His only proposal to that Congress was one to allow "freedom of groupings", meaning the freedom to form fractions. Once again he pulled the same stunt in the 15th Congress of 1926; he publicly subscribed to a resolution that explicitly banned such fractions, and directly afterwards published more pamphlets that directly opposed the resolution that he subscribed to! This is not a man who levied fair criticisms and was shut down, he was someone who held minority positions, anti-leninist ones, and refused to admit it, to the point of plotting against the USSR.

But how come Trotsky, during his better known times in exile, claimed he was the true Leninist and that he opposed the Stalinist degeneration? This is the greatest example of a tactic he used constantly. To always seem like the rational critic, and to pass his opposition as one coming from another bolshevik, he always shifted the perspective of his criticisms. In the times of Lenin, Lenin was the "great disorganizer", and the "leader of the reactionary wing of the party"³. But once Lenin died, he became the most loyal foot-soldier of Leninism, crusading against the Stalinist corruption. Then it was Stalin who became Trotsky's devil, effortlessly transposing his criticisms of Lenin to Stalin, and shifting his perspective from that of a menshevik, to that of a true "bolshevik-leninist".

This tactic was used constantly. For instance. when he was still within the ranks of the party, he completely opposed the principles of democratic-centralism, but once he was in exile and had to criticize the Communist International, his issue suddenly became only that the bolshevik form of organization was being hastily applied to different contexts. Then, he really had no issue with democratic-centralism. When he talked of the possibility of a revolution in the US, then all his worries of an insurmountable reaction dissolved, instead becoming an optimist who believed that, actually, there would be no real significant class who would oppose a revolution in the US, and that therefore the USamerican workers should carry out a revolution "without compulsion". The very same person who over the course of decades insisted on the dangers of a counter-revolution apparently believed the workers of the USA had no opposition to fear. This was, rather, simply an opposition to the Communist International's analysis of imperialism, as Trotsky placed the most revolutionary potential in the countries where capitalism was most developed, the imperial core, the very same mistake Marx and Engels committed, except only 70 years prior and with no good framework with which to analyze imperialism. If Trotsky was truly a leninist, then he utterly failed at even beginning to understand anything about the theory regarding imperialism.

I think this is a good enough place to leave Trotsky be, and talk now about trotskyism beyond Trotsky.

Trotskyism, especially in its analysis of imperialism, is very attractive to the imperial core communist. It appeals to multiple sensibilities like individualism, an aversion to revolutionary discipline and work, and impatience. By putting the emphasis away from the party of our class and onto the group of individual ideologues, each with their own cliques and mini-parties, by completely disregarding the possibility of a revolution outside the top of the imperialist pyramid, and by also disregarding the possibility of a revolution until the instance of a total global victory, it is no wonder most trotskyists nowadays are found in the imperial core. This is, with the exception of a portion of Latin-American countries, which I think deserves its own explanation.

Latin America in the 20s and 30s was a continent⁴ of very differing levels of development of capitalism and the proletariat. When many European trotskyists left to Latin America for various reasons, it's no coincidence that they ended up mostly in the urban centers of the most developed countries, such as Argentina and México, where Trotsky himself ended his emigrations after exile. It was exported to places that had a significantly developed proletariat, places which up to that point lacked a culture of multiple communist parties, like Europe had, and places with a strong unionist movement. Other countries like Colombia, Ecuador or Perú, whose worker movements were more significantly indigenist and/or decolonial, along with not meeting the other conditions like Argentina and México, were less ripe for trotskyism.

The condition for a lack of a multi-party environment was important because the trotskyist opposition to the USSR collected all the "orphaned" communists who opposed the sections of the Communist International in each of their countries, especially after the Moscow trials of the late 30s which expanded the opposition to marxism-leninism internationally, as well as with other events like the Hungarian intervention after WW2. But besides this very specific phenomenon, product of a set of very specific conditions which, outside of the imperial core, were only met in these specific countries, the basis of trotskyism as an imperial core opposition to marxism-leninism remains.

So nowadays, trotskyists are mostly located in the imperial core, with those exceptions I've explained. And this leads me to the last part of this post, which is about organizing with trotskyists as a marxist-leninist. In short, it's not impossible but also not an extraordinary situation. Organizing in the imperial core varies from country to country, that much is clear, but the fragmentation into countless groups and sects, as well as the competition with social-democrats, is broadly consistent. These conditions, again generally, mean marxist-leninist parties in the imperial core have to collaborate with a myriad of communist offshoots, anarchists, and ill-defined "leftists" to achieve a broader reach. This includes trotskyists. What makes them in particular uniquely annoying to organize with is that they continue to pretend to be leninists despite all the discrepancies, so they tend to constitute competitors in agitation and rhetoric, while their internal organization usually resembles that of an anarchist group more than anything else. From this, other symptoms like a reliance on assemblyism (especially in the students' movement) and extreme levels of voluntarism naturally follow.

The IMT (International Marxist Tendency), or whichever acronym it is that they're using now, has a relevant presence in just the US and UK with a nominal one in most other imperial core countries. In all cases they're not much more than newspaper vendors who sometimes gives talks at best, and mere reading clubs or financially-extorting sects at worst. There is another international grouping of trotskyist parties that I've come across led by the PTA (Partido del Trabajo Argentino, Argentinian Labor Party), mostly linked via their news broadcast Izquierda Diario, although from what I've heard, the PTA finances their international "children" parties too. Of course, these groups all have different names in each country which in turn tend to change every few years.

Before the split of the Second International during WWI, communists called themselves social-democrats

The mode of production of the peasantry was very individualized, since each peasant or group of peasants lived partly from the fruits of their own labor, they didn't sell it in its entirety. This stands in contrast with the proletariat's completely socialized mode of production; every worker sells the entirety of their labor-power and sustains themself by purchasing commodities with their salary. The pre-existing socialization of production in capitalism was identified by Marx and Engels already in the Manifesto as one of the reasons for the proletariat being the revolutionary class by excellence. The reactionary tendencies of the peasantry wasn't wholly determined by this, it also depended on various historical and contextual reasons, but this should be better expanded on a dedicated post to social alliances.

These are all real insults thrown at Lenin by Trotsky when he disagreed about party discipline. The "true leninist", ladies and gentlemen

Using "continent" in a very loose way here. It's not like the common definitions of continent are very determined either. But you get what I mean

[feski]

The blue wave guys…where is it?!?!?!? What is happening. I know I’ve been asking for something to push me over the edge, but I didn’t mean now. I meant like in a couple years.

[princesssarcastia]

tumblr is really bad a politics actually. please don't form opinions about political systems on tumblr. oh my god. this made me literally blind with rage and confusion for a second there.

just because the mainstream democratic party has started using "threats to democracy" as part of its campaign strategy this election cycle doesn't mean this is untrue?? please don't let your hatred for mainstream democratic political messaging make you also hate that it has FINALLY cottoned onto the fact that the american right would like us to stop living in a multiracial democracy/pluralistic society. that is a good thing, actually. it's a good thing that mainstream politics are finally willing to acknowledge that one of the two major parties is only interested in trying to destroy the political system we live under, is only interested in shoving gravel down our toilets so they blow up.

we do actually have a democracy. it's not a total direct democracy. there are a shit ton of flaws in the system. this is in part because, in fact, it's a relatively young democracy! I agree with nikole hannah-jones' assertion that the u.s. has only been a democracy for real since the 1960s, when civil rights legislation Black americans fought and died for started going into effect.

which is why this moment, 60 years on, is so important. it's a radical stress-testing of a system that it's important to preserve so that we can continue to make more progress from this point. we have to prove that the system can work this way.

i get it. voting sucks. gerrymandering has backed so many of us into a corner. we've politically and legally incentivized imprisoning members of minority populations so that they can no longer vote. the supreme court actually gutted some of that legislation passed in the 1960s that made us into a real democracy, sending us into the period of backsliding that we're currently in.

do you know how many of the candidates I voted for in my last election won? zero. ZERO. every single one of them lost. I get it, okay? this all sucks! it makes you feel powerless! but you can't let that feeling win.

that feeling is a lie they're trying to sell you so that you give up. so that you stop fighting for the democracy we've got. "bourgeois democracy" get the fuck out of here. oh my god. shut up.

[the-voice-of-night-vale]

now im not saying anything about whether or not you ~should~ vote for the immigrant-hating palestinian-killer who happens to be a "democrat" but i swear if i see one more post about how "if everyone had just voted! trump never would have gotten in office and we don't want that to happen again!!" i'm gonna go chimp mode

trump didn't even win the popular vote, you idiots. am i the only one who remembers the weeks of protests because of it?

[comradecowplant]

something something upper/middle class settler queers something something weaponized victim complex something something............................................................................

[bibleofficial]

where is my fat husband

[grimcatician]

“OUR MOST VULNERABLE WILL SUFFER IF TRUMP WINS!!”

WHOS FAULT IS IT

Who’s fucking fault is it that these two evil bastards are our “only two” choices!???

I hate you motherfuckers I HATE y’all so goddamn much

Marginalized people have BEEN suffering.

Under every single GODDAMNED president and I’m sick of y’all only ever getting angry and upset over it when the Clear Bad Guy™️ for you liberals is up on the ballot too

Democrats have blood on their hands they ALWAYS have. Obama is called the Deporter in Chief for a goddamned reason. How many atrocities have been committed by liberal, “progressive” presidents and politicians.

LOOK AT LOS ANGELES RIGHT NOW

LOOK AT WHATS HAPPENING WITH THAT CITY blue as FUCK and we’re trying to ban masks and started the wheels moving on criminalizing homelessness the DAY after the Supreme Court ruling.

And yes oooo project 2025!! Ok well what do we do NEXT election? The one after that?? Bc that shit is LONG TERM plan, it is made so that it can be put into action at ANY time and with ANY rep president and I hardly see shit about that.

You all upset and disgust me so much tbqh y’all dismiss ANYONE on the fence about this not realizing that most of the ppl who don’t want or won’t vote for Biden have been suffering for fucking years decades LIFETIMES and continue to see a party that proclaims they care but CONTINUE to do Jack shit to actually dismantle the instructions that perpetuate harm bc THEY DEPEND ON THEM

GAH

ITS THE LACK IF EMPATHY FOR PPL YOU DEEM AS “STUPID” AND UNINTELLIGENT FOR FEELING AT ALL EVEN A LITTLE ON THE FENCE ABOUT THIS

Fuck y’all

[bleuberrygliscor]

i know its 90% venting at the bleakness of american politics but like...

it really fucking blows to know that most people are probably not gonna vote this year. i cant wait for the fallout of that.

[transxfiles]

the more fucked up bills i see passed or even just proposed in state legislatures the more i begin to doubt that i even have the illusion of choice in what happens to me under my state government.

[antimony-ore]

Reblog to ramble in tags, if you share this from me you're fucking weird

[scrollypoly]

Ok, so with all these posts going around aboht election interference and calling for a recount, i wanted to find evidence that weren't twitter screenshots

Tl;dr - bomb threats yes, 3 fires at ballot boxes (1 had damaged ballots and theyre fixing it), 20 million unaccounted votes is FALSE, this shit takes time to count so be patient, cuz they are STILL COUNTING

Bomb threats at polling places:

This claim is legit, as well as the source being from russian email domains. No actual bombs were placed or set off.

Burning ballot boxes:

3 incidents of burning ballot boxes have been confirmed for this election in Portland, Oregon and one in Vancouver, Washington, both of which are suspected to be from the same individual. Republican and Democrat officials have spoken out against this, ballot boxes were guarded after the incidents started, and fire suppression systems inside the ballot boxes saved the majority of the ballots, except for one box where 488 ballots were damaged due to a malfunction of the fire suppression system.

Fires were also confirmed in Arizona by a man who apparently just wanted to be arrested and had no political motivations.

No fires were confirmed in Georgia, despite repeated claims that most of the fires were in Georgia. Georgia changed their election laws in 2021 in regards to absentee votes. Ballot boxes have been notably targetted for election conspiracy and mistrust. Take this into account when you see outcry about ballot boxes in any way.

Votes not being counted:

The screenshots im seeing particularly note California, which is the state with the largest amount of registered voters. California is also dealing with massive wildfires rn. Its gonna take a couple days, and the election isnt officially over yet. Calm down

20 million unaccounted votes:

Yall . . .

This shit takes time. Theyre not "throwing your ballots out" or "deliberately not counting votes". Be so for real

Some of this shit is valid, and should probably be known. Some of this shit is making yall sound like trumpers in 2020. Be smart. Have critical thinking.

If youre gonna reblog or comment with claims i better see credible evidence to back your claims up or youre getting blocked

Edited to add a TL;DR, no other changes

[traegorn]

while i completely agree with your assessment of realistically what a trump vs harris presidency will look like, i think the issue me and a lot of other leftists have is that there is no need to tell people (and effectively tell harris) that oh ofc we are gna vote for her despite these issues because trump is THAT bad and if you say you don't want to vote for her because her party is pro-war, pro-genocide, then you are condemning americans to a trump presidency. we know trump is worse! i don't want him to win AT ALL, but why would harris even consider even changing the language she is using (i'm looking at the absolutely stupid speech she was giving in michigan, given the large arab & muslim-american population there and given its a battleground state) if she thinks she is going to win on a not-trump basis? i know who i'm voting for on nov 5th if it comes down to it, but we need the democrats to THINK they are going to lose until the very last minute, we need them to feel like they can't just rely on being the lesser of two evils if we want any chance of a shift on palestine. because they very well might lose, for this exact reason (and i'm speaking again more to the votes of the arab & muslim-american population which is far more demographically meaningful than the votes of leftists) and if that happens, they have no one to blame but themselves.

So I'm going to tell you something important: You don't have the leverage you think you have.

Political campaigns are a machine that's been operating the same way for a long time on the Democratic side. The Republicans may have abandoned a lot of the old ways of doing things, but the Democratic party hasn't. And you've got people running these campaigns who are steeped in the "wisdom" of how you win.

And when a block of voters says they're not going to vote for their candidate, they tend to believe them. So they decide to go court the people who they think will vote for them. That's why you've seen the Harris campaign trying to court moderate Republicans who might be iffy on voting for Trump a third time.

Right now one of the reasons Netanyahu is refusing to commit to a cease fire is because he thinks Trump can win. If Trump wins, he has no reason to ever agree to one. One of the reasons he thinks Trump can win is because the polling is so close.

If you want to know why they've gone to the right recently, it's because they think they've lost the left. And since a lot of those leftists are claiming there's a line in the sand that they don't have the power to appease (because -- again -- they can't get Netanyahu to do shit right now), they're going to go for the centrist Republicans.

Also, there seems to be this weird notion that the only way to move the Democrats is during the election. That's not how you move people. You keep pressuring them during their term and it works. Like Biden is continuing to work on forgiving student debt even though he doesn't have an election ahead of him. Because they know that what he does reflects on the future of the party. Voting doesn't end this game, it's the start of it.

But none of it will matter if Trump wins.

[alex51324]

Useful article from CNN on election-night misinformation.

Key takeaway is that pretty much whatever happens, Trump will claim it's evidence that the election is being rigged against him.

Some additional things to keep in mind--particularly if you haven't been through many of these before:

The winner may or may not be projected on election night. How long it takes depends on a bunch of factors, having to do with the logistics of ballot-counting and how the statistical analysis comes along. Getting a projected winner by midnight and the count taking several days are both well within the range of normal, and neither one suggests that anything nefarious is happening.

Counting of votes always continues for several days after the election, until every vote has been counted. This happens regardless of whether or not the media have "called" a winner, or a candidate has conceded.

Media outlets project election winners based on the data that has come in and their statistical models--they do not "declare" or "decide" who won. The major outlets are very motivated to avoid an incorrect projection*, so if they make a call, it's because they're really sure they have enough information to accurately predict the outcome of the final count.

Usually, when this happens, all of the major media outlets are making the same projection around the same time--within the same hour, at least, and often in the same 10 minutes or so. If there's an outlier, there's a good chance they're either guessing or propagandizing.

Candidates do not get to call the race in their own favor. There's a decent chance Trump will try, but also it's also normal and expected for both campaigns to talk like they're expecting to win; e.g. introducing their candidate as "the next President of the United States" when appearing before supporters at events. (My guess is that if he does try, the mainstream media outlets will simply sanewash it as typical election-night bravado, which is actually fine.)

The only thing that means anything, coming from a candidate/campaign, is a concession. This will often happen after the media has called the race for the other candidate; it usually isn't a surprise. A normal campaign will often go quiet--stop sending people to talk on TV, etc.--when they're getting ready to concede. (Trump arguably** still hasn't conceded 2020, so no one is particularly expecting him to concede any time this coming week.)

It's normal for the numbers to change a lot. There are always some surprises, but there are also standard patterns: results from the southeast usually come in a clump, and put a lot of electoral votes into the Republican column, early in the night. Democrats usually pick up the west coast states, which of course are the last to close their polls and start reporting results***. For the swing states, where we'll probably see a lot of reporting on very incomplete vote totals, results will start coming in first from the rural areas, which lean red; cities take longer to count their votes--because there are more of them--and lean blue.

The more uncertainty there is about the outcome, the more you'll hear about the evolving numbers--news networks have airtime to fill, and there's only so many ways you can say, "Still too close to call." Try not to obsess over these numbers; the news networks have people specially trained to analyze this exact kind of data, and if they can't say how it's going to turn out, you're not going to know, either.

If it ends up being too close to call for several days, there will probably be reporting on small, county-by-county vote dumps. It's important to realize that this is all still the original count of the votes, not a recount or "finding new votes." We only hear about it when the election is so close that these relatively small numbers of ballots are likely to affect the outcome, but it happens every single election. In 2020, Trump repeatedly claimed that ongoing counts were some how irregular, and sometimes demanded that counts be stopped when the current total showed him in the lead. This is, to be clear, nuts; the full & complete count of the votes always takes more than just the one day, and it's a bedrock principle of democracy that every valid ballot is counted.

(* Back in 2000, the Bush-Gore election with the whole Florida debacle, several major news outlets did project winners too soon, and then had to walk back their projections.

This definitely contributed to the chaos that night, and may have also contributed to the widespread perception that Bush was the "real" winner and Gore was dragging the country through multiple recounts, in those first few days when the initial count of wasn't even complete in some states.

As a result, responsible media outlets are much more cautious these days about election-night projections.)

(**On January 7, 2021 he made a statement that was taken as indicating his understanding that Biden had won, or at least that he knew he wouldn't be staying in office, but he never stopped saying he won.)

(***This often looks like the Republican being miles ahead, and then suddenly California reports in and they aren't anymore. Expect Trump to pretend that this is somehow shocking, even though the last time a Republican won California was 1988.

Similarly, he will also pretend to be surprised when, for instance, Philadelphia turns in their first big batch of results, and Harris's numbers jump up.)

[txttletale]

Sorry for anon, I'm shy. I think I'm one of the liberals you're complaining about and I don't want to be. If (and only if) you have the time/energy, could you elaborate more on where the Harris campaign went wrong? I promise I don't mean this in a sealioning way - I genuinely want to understand and move towards a better perspective, but I don't even know what to Google to start.

it is extremely conventional political wisdom that running as the incumbent party during an unpopular administration is a gruelling uphill battle--harris was in this position, and i think going all-in on her continuity with biden, who is extremely disliked (for many reasons, ranging from his fervent passion for genocide to a vague sense that He Made The Ecnomy Bad And Woke) was a catastrophic error that any dickhead with a political science degree would have told her to avoid. unfortunatley she surrounded herself with biden's people who in the run-up to him stepping down had already proven themselves to be completely self-deluding and isolated from reality.

the absolute worst thing you can do in the electoral situation harris was in is go on television and say "i would do absolutely nothing differently to the current (unpopular) administration" and she did literally exactly that.

other facts are that the constituency her campaign decided to go all-in on, of, like, sensible moderate center-right republicans who value bipartisanship, basically hasn't existed since tea party birtherism became ascnedant in the republican party if it ever did at all. the idea that there was an election-winning segment of voeters who would vote for harris if she proved that she wasn't "too liberal" through serious policy commitments to right-wing positions was just not founded in reality--like it was a strategy that failed to grapple with the basic reality that the modern republican position on democrat politicians is that they're adrenochrome-chugging child rapists.

in a similar vein her hard pivot to border fascism was morally deplorable but also a total waste of time because donald "build the wall" trump has made his personal brand synonymous with anti-immigration politics and so she was simply never ever going to win anyone over from him on that ground. & finally of course there was the campaign;'s wholehearted and total contempt for her own potential voters, which manifseted most obviously and evilly in their treatment of anti-genocide protestors and their flying bill clinton out ot michigan to lecture arabs about how they deserved to be bombed but also seems responsible for their total lack of consideration of (again) conventional elecvtoral tactics 101 like "energizing the base" or "getting out the vote"

so tldr it was just a disastrous campaign that prioritized the egos of biden campaign staff and biden himself over winning or facing basic reality

[qqueenofhades]

I've seen a lot of doom today. Thank you for the bracing positivity!

Look man, idk if I would call it positivity. I'm fucking furious that the media and/or the billionaire class could have chosen at any time, ANY TIME, to carry out this coordinated ratfucking on Trump, and nope, they did it to Biden. Not coincidentally after he openly started espousing even more leftist/progressive tax and wealth policies. I'm also fairly certain that Putin (who is well used to playing the American elections ratfucking game) is involved here somehow, because he desperately wants Biden out and Trump back in. Two plus two, etc.

The elected Democrats who went along with this and/or who contributed to fucking Biden over also have a hell of a lot to answer for, and I hope we, the voters, let them fucking know. The only way this makes sense is if Biden is actively dying of Covid right now and/or if it's bad enough to permanently damage him. In that case, he might have had a modicum of actual say about this, rather than falling victim to the Anonymous Sources who stabbed him in the back every step of the way.

That said: Kamala is a genuinely good candidate. I am excited to have the chance to vote for her. This does turn the whole Referendum on Two Old White Men With Mental Issues narrative on its head. She might be able to reach some constituencies that Biden couldn't. I don't know for sure if all the Democratic/never-Trump GOP votes will translate, but I am so motherfucking tired of fascists thinking this will be a walk in the park. They asked for this, they fucking got it, people are really fucking mad (including me and like, everyone), and if all this maneuvering gets our first female AND Black president, the fascists are going to absolutely fucking lose it and cry for eons. And idk about you, but I want to see some sore loser fuckboys cry cry cry. I want revenge for 2016. I want Trump dead and fucking gone and yknow, Black women have played a huge role in his bad bad times so far. So it's only fair, I suppose, that Kamala gets the chance to finish the motherfucker off. I don't know if it's positivity, but that's what is fueling me right now. So yeah.