#because biden isn't remotely left

[horizonsstandstill]

Sorry to bust these liberals little world but even Nixon era had better leftist policies and inflation control than Biden era. The guy didn't increase wages as promised while letting corporates make rampant increase in prices for no reason. Very leftist. Also very leftist of him to subsidise big oil when ten percent of Americans are living on food stamps. So very leftist of him to pass immigration law too. Quite leftist of him to let the rents spike where landlords are downright taking away everything working class have. Extremely leftist of him to prioritise economy over people dying from COVID 19. Totally leftist of him to have the healthcare system crumbling and inaccessible to poor.

By the way Biden is very right in political science wise. And that immigration law is very much far right. Living in denial land while bragging about moral superiority must be fun.

The biggest labor union in Washington state endorsed voting “uncommitted” in the state’s Democratic presidential primary next month, citing concerns about President Joe Biden’s political strength and his support for Israel’s war in Gaza.

this is a good start, but unfortunately:

“Currently, many voters, and UFCW 3000 executive board, feel that the best path to have the best nominee, and to defeat Trump, is to vote ‘uncommitted,’” the union said in the statement. “The hope is that this will strengthen the Democratic party’s ultimate nominee to defeat Trump in the General Election in November.” “We need a nominee who can run and beat Trump to protect workers across this country and around the world,” the statement continued. The union made it clear that it will support Democrats in the fall, vowing it will be “sending staff, members, and resources to any swing state across the nation to support the Democratic nominee to win and defeat Trump.”

not far enough. the correct move would be to cut off support for the democratic party entirely, and, indeed, for the labor movement as a whole to stop getting roped into electoral political theater at all, and to work on building political power outside the electoral system. neither republican nor democrat politicians care about working class people, nor do they care about the people of palestine, and if we want to build worker power and stop genocide, we're going to have to think outside the ballot box.

[schraubd]

The Day After Hamas

The New York Times reports increasing "daylight" (to use an old term) between President Biden and Netanyahu regarding what the aftermath of the Gaza campaign will look like -- specifically, regarding the role that the Palestinian Authority might have in governing Gaza once (knock on wood) Hamas is defeated.  Paul Campos thinks this is reflective of the worries regarding "the administration’s up until now very muted response to the siege of Gaza, and the gathering human rights and public health catastrophe that it represents." I'm not sure that's quite right, though it's perhaps lurking in the background. The more prominent instinct, I think, is that Biden fundamentally agrees with Israel regarding the merits and necessity of destroying Hamas, but fundamentally disagrees with Bibi regarding "the day after". The more "the day after" becomes salient in our minds and we start thinking not in terms of the war's prosecution but its aftermath, the more we're going to see latent but always-present disagreements between Bibi and Biden come to a fore. One sees this dynamic particularly in how Biden relates his response to Bibi's claim that the allies "carpet bombed Germany" -- "I said, 'Yeah, that’s why all these institutions were set up after World War II, to see to it that it didn’t happen again.'" The former point is about prosecution of the war, the latter point is about how we handled the aftermath. For Biden, destroying Hamas has to be followed by aggressive state-building efforts meant to provide a real future (economically, socially, and politically) for the Palestinian people. The allusion to the Marshall Plan after World War II is clearly part of this, and other relevant players are also insisting that any plans for rebuilding Gaza credibly commit to a realistic pathway for Palestinian statehood. For Bibi -- well, I really have no idea what Bibi's "day after" plan is. I don't think he actually wants to fully reoccupy Gaza; but he also doesn't want the PA involved; or international involvement; and certainly Hamas is out the question; so ... where are we left? He seems much more interested in what he'll say "no" to than what he can plausibly say "yes" to, because at this stage in the game reality has become Bibi's unconquerable enemy. And Biden, in turn, isn't going to have a lot of patience for Israel post-war simply refusing to let Gaza rebuild itself or have any sort of self-governance structure whatsoever just because Bibi can no longer square the circle of "no formal occupation" and "no Palestinian independence" by building a castle around Gaza and then never thinking about it again.. Even if one accepts that Israel is pot committed to destroying Hamas, that doesn't obviate but rather accentuates the need to have a serious answer to the "day after" question. Anyone remotely serious figure understands that the war in Gaza is the middle of the story, not the end, which makes it unsurprising that Bibi wants to treat it as an end and just close his eyes to what happens in the aftermath. Biden is a more serious person, and so he's actually contemplating these questions.  via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/FUY0IK1

[protoslacker]

Politics in the Toilet

Lots of graffiti in one of the toilet stalls at work recently . There was a running Biden v. Trump argument. The Biden side was hampered by ink vulnerable to whatever chemical the cleaner uses against graffiti. The Trump side was probably using a Sharpie which remain unphased by it. The Trump side seems to have won, at least a temporary victory, writing: "Since you hate America you damn Communist."

When I got home I stumbled upon a author event with Kohei Saito and listened in. Saito"s 2020 book, Capital in the Anthropocene, became a surprise bestseller in Japan.

My experience in the USA, being called a "communist" is a lot like being called a "faggot," both epithets imply that such a person deserves violence meted out. I'm not sure that's the case in Japan, but Saito remarked that he used the term "degrowth communism" to emphasize that the climate and environment crises demand radical responses.

I can't view anything on YouTube that's remotely"left-leaning" without first some stern words from Victor Davis Hanson or something of that ilk. Saito's unexpected popularity has spawned lots of critical reviews as compared to Jason Hickle's book Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World. There's some traction in having an unexpected bestseller. I enjoyed listening to Saito and my sense is that sudden or perhaps fleeting fame isn't going to phase him much.

Some of Saito's critics are from the left and a recurrent criticism is over the politics of achieving degrowth, or more broadly a politics of eco-socialism. One reviewer suggested reading Vincent Bevins's book, If We burn along side Saito"s Slow Down. Bevins's book sought to answer why a decade of protest has resulted in so little political change.

I'm a very commonplace person who looks to the writing on the toilet stall wall for a feel for the political pulse. But I noticed that Bevins previous book was The Jakarta Method. That book chronicles the American policy of mass killing in countries over the globe during the Cold War.

Seeing that book reminded me that it's not just everyday bullies who want to beat me up because the think I'm a faggot, a communist, or a faggot-communist, the violence is baked into the slow movement of history.

The climate crisis is moving faster than expected. The politics leading to positive change are very hard, and the stakes existential. I feel encouraged by Kohei Saito and Jason Hickel courage and good humor. I'm convinced that kindness is essential to politics now.

[qqueenofhades]

Do you think conservatives hate Griner because she's A) Black, B) a lesbian, with a wife who has been vocal and been in the spotlight, proving that Black lesbians are actual people who exist! In America! and arent just fantasy creatures created for woke points by the left and ruining their precious white straight worldview C) politically conscious with the audacity to *checks notes* peacefully protest D) all of the above

They hate her for all those reasons, yes, and also because she reveals the fundamental hypocrisy and cruelty of their position just by existing. I can 1000% guarantee you that if Trump traded Bout for Whelan (which, like, he himself confirmed he had turned down as an option), the Republicans would be all over themselves to worship him for Bravely Rescuing an Innocent American, they would not give a crap about what Bout had done or what he was accused of, and otherwise portray Trump as a great statesman and diplomat. Except oops, Paul Whelan's own brother said in literally as many words that Trump cares no more about Whelan now (zero) than he did then (zero). So as usual, this straight up alternate-reality delusion about how Almighty God King Trump could have gotten Whelan out too!!! is just that. Nonsense. It's also very much the case that the Republicans think that Whelan, a white straight Trump-supporting male, is infinitely more of a person than Griner, so.

Basically, what infuriates the GOP the most is that Biden viewed Griner as a person, all by herself, and therefore worthy of making the swap when it was available. She is, yes, a Black lesbian who has kneeled for the national anthem in the past, and in Republican calculus, that makes her not a person at all, and definitely not worth the President of the United States saving all on her own, if they couldn't get Whelan too (and it is once more important to note that they don’t actually give a shit about him either, they just want to use him as a club to hypocritically judge Biden for Failing). In their minds, however, Whelan is the only actual American TM, and thus by trading Bout for Griner, Biden gave up a dangerous arms dealer for "nobody." Griner has literally no personhood in their eyes (and that of certain people on tumblr) because she is a member of multiple marginalised groups that the GOP hates, she has kneeled for the national anthem and thus registered even the most minor protest against white supremacy and American racism, and is "just a basketball player" (as if, you know, a failed former reality TV star isn't said almighty god-king of their party). Soo.

Anyway, it is their usual toxic blend of racism, misogyny, and homophobia, all at once, and represents just who they actually mean when they say America First!!! Well, okay, Brittney Griner is an American freed from an unjust and politically motivated imprisonment that very likely could have cost her life. Are the Republicans happy about An American being rescued, even if she is Black, lesbian, etc? No, because they don't want her or anyone else like her in the country, and out of Whelan and Griner, Whelan is the only one that they are even able to remotely conceive as a person and/or worth making any kind of sacrifice for.

[thepoliticalvulcan]

Imagine thinking that the Trump admin was such a uniquely aberrant period that "the Deep State" (tm) is so threatened its using weather weapons to wreck red states ahead of the election?

Like I get it, if you were a persecuted minority or just someone who cares deeply about government affecting compassion and care, the Trump years were rough. That doesn't mean that the euphoria that ultra MAGA feels when it looks back on those years is in any way justified. Its almost entirely rhetorical because outside of social issues, life under Trump was a soap opera but basically everything was the same - unless you're one of those persecuted people. The economy was good (for some) but it wasn't a miracle. Hell, most of the economic policies were retained by the Biden admin along with the immigration hawkishness.

This is Ultra MAGA's brag and the left critique of the establishment: they hate Trump so much they kept almost all of his most substantive policies and just saned them up a bit by putting qualified technocrats in charge of them.

So what's left? Ukraine? "The Deep State" has largely "allowed" politics to screw over Ukraine pretty much throughout 2023 and 2024. If there is a "Deep State" that can run roughshod over small d democracy and the whims of elected officials, it has basically elected not to do that. Its functionally already washed its hands of Ukraine now that its clear that Europe isn't going to get its act together and provide military assistance. "The Deep State" wants to pivot to Taiwan and Iran.

Who else is a China and Iran hawk?

Trump.

So how is this magical weather war benefiting the Deep State if 1. his administration was of no real threat to the Deep State and 2. their big picture strategic goals are basically aligned?

And if the capacity exists to weaponize hurricanes and has existed for quite some time (HAARP is a VERY old conspiracy theory) then why didn't Trump use it for his own benefit? Why not hammer New York and California? Neither are so blue that a major natural disaster couldn't tip them over.

Do the SAME conspiracy weirdos who love his open and visceral hatred of "libs" and share Emperor of Man memes think he's too honorable and kind to inflict massive suffering on blue states? Especially if you think he shares your belief that there are dark and esoteric forces at work in the country that only he can defeat (somehow) and that the consequences of the election, either for himself (staying out of jail) or the country are tremendous?

As someone who read a bit of Nikola Tesla and Majestic 12 this and that back in the day and still enjoys stories about alien contactees and such, the incoherence of the weather wars as electoral interference theory frustrates me. Its as dumb as aliens invading Earth to steal gold. Its as dumb as aliens invading Earth to rip out its core. Its as dumb as the dumbest scifi movie plot and not even remotely as much fun.

These people have talked themselves into the idea that Trump is so special that The Deep State or whatever would break out the weather weapons to throw the election rather than just rigging the damn thing like they think the Deep State did in 2020. That euphoria they felt for four years and that nostalgia is based on their visceral hatred of "libs" and the vibes. Nothing else.

Its incredibly frustrating. People died last weekend. They are likely still dying. More people are going to die Wednesday/Thursday. And these freaks are fantasizing that Trump is so special that the same tools an angry god would use to smite nonbelievers are being wielded by "dark forces" to prevent his re-election.

If through some Rube Goldberg theory this is actually somehow to hurt Harris (because there are cities full of blue voters who have been hurt by Helene, Tampa Bay - where Milton is liable to hit, is full of blue voters) you are also part of the problem. The same logic applies to Biden. He was not so uniquely special that some New World Order would feel the need to sabotage the election in favor of Trump. Trump, for all his fixation and obsequiousness to malevolent and evil people, is not a uniquely disruptive, evil, and malignant actor in world history or American history. So whatever you think makes Trump so appealing to the dark forces of international market fascism that they'd throw hurricanes around like they were bowling balls: you are wrong.

[rotationalsymmetry]

Getting irrationally angry about the way people keep spreading that one post about Biden's eulogy for Kissinger having crab rave energy.

I think it is irrational because a lot of people are sort of...only just figuring out politics on here, and in that context it is good to talk about deciphering political language and how it's possible to criticize someone or something without using the sort of language you would use at a demonstration. And most of the post is about that.

I do not like the continued campaign (I'm not sure it's even a self aware campaign) to smush everything left of center into the same thing. Democrats (as in, politicians and voters for whom the Democratic Party platform basically represents their political position, as opposed to people who side with the Democratic Party in practice as being somewhat noticeably less awful than the Republicans) have a closer world view and ideology to Republicans than to leftists.

That is a simple statement of fact and really should not be a surprise to anyone who is remotely familiar with any of the words I used.

It is ludicrous to expect coalition between two groups that have less in common with each other than one has with the group they're supposed to ally against.

And that's even before you get into the vast discrepancies between how this stuff is supposed to work in theory (elected representatives vote for what their constituents want, mediated by their own conscience/common sense/potentially better understanding of the situation; what the Dems (politicians) say they want is what they actually want) and how it works in practice (to a large degree, elected representatives vote for what their largest campaign contributors want, mediated by personal greed or pride; the Dems (and the Republicans) have a large gap between what they campaign on and what they actually want.

Anyways, no, there isn't crab rave energy. Biden disagees with and disapproves of Kissinger. He may be horrified by some things Kissinger is done, I don't really have a good sense of Biden's internal world. He's also...running the United States government. It's not like there was an Evil Advisor and now the Evil Advisor is gone and there's a Good King again like some sort of fairy tale. The US government is the same government even when there's an administration change and it mostly does the same things.

This is in the same line as "but Biden was advocating for a ceasefire behind the scenes! And yeah he's funding isreal but the US and Israel are allies so he has to" yeah? You think the people are shouting Genocide Joe because they want the US to be allied to Israel but in a kinder, gentler way? That they want Israel to keep on as usual but be a little bit nicer? They want the state of Israel to stop existing, or turn into something that is no longer an apartheid state, or something. Not "well of course things were fine before the last weeks of bombing", but "things have been awful for decades and just took a turn for much worse." It's a very big political difference and it's irritating when people elide it.

Especially when they're presenting themselves as the smart, politically aware people in contrast to those dumb radicals who don't even know what they want. We know what we want. You just don't like it.

[korrasera]

I'm putting this in a reblog because it's too much for the notes. First, @dickgirlsdaily had a short rebuttal when I pointed out she was spreading misinformation:

1) You brought up Yemen right in the middle of explaining how Biden is a genocider who's escalating conflict in the Middle East. That's implying that Biden is facilitating genocide in Yemen. It might not be what you intended, but the implication is still there.

2) Yemen isn't an escalation either, it's a response to the Houthi movement's attacks. If you'd like to learn more about Ansar Allah, the group being referred to as the Houthis, you can check out one of my reblogs as I describe them briefly and point you to where to go to learn more.

If people have a knee-jerk reaction to support Ansar Allah because they're opposing Israel's genocide in Gaza, it's important to note that Ansar Allah is an antisemitic theocratic militant group that's trying to overthrow the Yemeni government and take control of Yemen. They plunged the country into a civil war several years ago. They are not allies to the left, not even remotely. They're just more authoritarian thugs.

3) Giving military aid to Israel isn't encouraging genocide either. The Biden administration is trying to maintain its relationship with Israel. Israel already has everything they need and if the US wasn't sending them aid and somehow they needed help they'd just be buying arms elsewhere. The aid we give them doesn't materially change what Israel can do in Gaza, it just reinforces the diplomatic relationship between the US and Israel.

Additional:

In my opinion, it's also one of the big failures of the administration. The administration has tried to pressure Israel not to attack the Palestinian people, but I think we should be withdrawing any support from them over this. I believe Bernie Sanders brought forward the suggestion that any aid we provide to Israel needs to be contingent on them not attacking the Palestinian people and ending the campaign in Gaza. And I think he's right.

That aid is what makes us complicit in the genocide in Gaza, as I see it. If we aren't doing everything we can to stop it, and we absolutely are not, we're complicit. The administration may not be encouraging it, but that complicity still exists.

Gaza is morally simple, genocide is wrong and we should be using all of our power to try to stop it. The political situation in the Middle East is extremely complex, with multiple powerful countries all ready to fight each other over very old, longstanding conflicts.

I want the US to use aid to pressure Israel. Also, upsetting the balance of power in the Middle East could mean unintentionally helping to escalate conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The US foreign policy has been moving towards withdrawing from interfering in the affairs of the Middle East, but to do that they want Israel to be a third power in the region alongside Iran and Saudia Arabia. This is both to minimize chance of a large scale conflict as well as to ensure the US has an ally in the region.

It's likely that the continued US support of Israel is based on the idea that the Iran/Saudi conflict will escalate and Israel won't be able to be an effective third party in the politics of the region. And I don't know enough about foreign policy forecasting to know if that's the best way of handling it. Doesn't feel like it is, to me. Hence my position, I want the US to use its aid to pressure Israel to stop the genocide in Gaza. Maybe it means more bloodshed down the line, but there's a genocide going on that has to stop.

This doesn't really make the foreign policy decisions any better, but it does go to explaining why these situations are so messy. And why they go far beyond a high school interpretation of politics in the face of a current ongoing genocide.

If you whip off a quick post about how Biden is encouraging genocide then you're just injecting more thought terminating cliches into the conversation, that's what misinformation does. It makes people feel informed, despite being misinformed, and then they don't need to go read anything else. Good takes on this situation should leave you wanting to learn more and to deepen your understanding. It shouldn't leave you with a confidence that it's all incredibly simple and 5 minutes on tumblr gave you a nuanced understanding of the politics.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing the Biden administration, Biden himself, or the US in general over this entire debacle. Or talking about the ways it does make us complicit in the genocide in Gaza because we won't get off our asses and won't use our strongest pressure.

I object to the op's post because they don't understand this stuff and are helping to spread a skewed, misinformed idea of what's going on and why it's happening you. That doesn't help anyone learn better, it just spreads one's own attitudes and ideological biases to anyone who will listen. Which in turn makes it harder for bystanders to learn and research and make up their own minds.

This is what misinformation always does. It does not educate, it only convinces.

-----

Now, let's move on to what @orionsgirdle had to say:

1) As I pointed out in my posts, the reason that we know the military advisors were sent to minimize civilian casualties is because...that's what they did, what the DOD and Pentagon said they were going to do, and what the reporting on the matter confirmed.

When two groups that are not allied or biased in support of each other report on the same basic facts, they're likely to be accurate. And that's what is going on here.

In addition to the sources I already provided, you can read more about the DOD position in a speech delivered by the US Secretary of Defense, who explains the same thing over again.

The US position has been that Israel has to end settler violence and protect civilian life if they don't want to face strategic defeat at the hands of Hamas. This reinforces what I showed before, that the military advisors we sent went to Israel were there to deescalate the situation.

We sent someone with firsthand experience of the exact same kind of conflict, someone who could show them how it only leads to defeat. And we know it didn't work because those advisors returned to the US quickly and Israel chose to escalate instead.

So, to summarize: the reason that you think my sources don't backup what I've said is because you haven't read them and don't appear to have an understanding of the subject in general.

2) This is also not accurate. And for the record, it was fairly easy to debunk, too. I suspect you didn't actually read your own sources, but more on that in a moment.

It's not $250 million worth of weapons, it's $3 billion ($14 billion, really) in aid. The $250 million in aid you're thinking of was probably a reference to support being provided to Ukraine, which Biden announced back in October.

Sidenote: Did you just google '$250 million weapons israel' and go with your first link? Without reading it? Because that link says that it's talking about Ukraine. The same article highlights that the latest Israel weapons deal from the US was $147.5 million, so I figure if you had read it you wouldn't have made such an elementary error. EDIT: I'm pretty sure I got this point wrong because it doesn't make sense that you were googling $250 million to arrive at a conclusion. Still, when I went searching, that was the only reference I could find, nothing that said $250 million went to Israel.

Back to the aid in general, Biden has actually asked for $14 billion in aid for Israel. We actually give between $3 and $4 billion in aid to Israel yearly, and I believe that we're at around $3.8 billion for 2023. That said, I don't know congressional spending very well and I don't have a more exact figure on this one.

About your take, I'm guessing you mention that he bypassed Congress to punch up your statements and make them seem more legitimate. Let me ask, were you aware that Congress had oversight of aid packages? And were you aware that emergency support is one of the powers delegated to the office of the president?

The aid we're talking about is always passed by Congress, they just deliberate over what form the final aid package will take. And the president is invested with the power to send emergency aid to deal with cases where congressional deliberation might create a delay in an emerging conflict or emergency.

It's not the kind of gotcha that you might think it is.

3) For someone who doesn't do their research you're quick to call my debunking 'vomitous' and to tell me to shut my mouth.

Again, as I mentioned to dickgirlsdaily in the notes, do you realize how much that makes you sound like a conservative?

My tone isn't the best, I know. I challenge people by pointing out how they aren't educated on a topic and haven't formed good arguments and that's always going to come off as condescending to someone who feels righteous and confident.

But I also don't need to call people names or tell them to shut their mouth. That's the domain of the conservative and self-righteous crowd.

-----

Speaking as someone who stands well to the left of where both of you are, I really hope you'll keep learning and getting better at this sort of stuff.

I find it exhausting to have to debunk this stuff so as a personal appeal I'll say this: Maybe consider that you were wrong and don't understand this topic as well as you do. I don't want to defend the actions of the Biden administration or US foreign policy at all, so please consider doing the real work of understanding all of this so I don't have to.

Fundamentally, if the democrats lose the presidency in 2024, it will not be because of "voter apathy" or "the idealistic left" or Cornell West or whatever third party candidate the liberals end up blaming. It will be because the democrats have failed to meet the lowest standards of many Americans.

You can talk about strategic voting until you're blue in the face, but fundamentally, people need reasons to vote for a candidate. There are people in this country watching as their family members get slaughtered by American arms, sent to Israel by Joe Biden. The people watching their families get murdered in Palestine have no reason to support Joe Biden. How can you ask them to?

"Sorry your family got bombed, but I need you to vote for the man who is directly responsible, or *real* people are going to suffer too."

It was at this point While I was drafting this post that I heard he just started bombing Yemen. It's like he's doing everything in his power to sink his own fucking campaign, are you shitting me? This isn't a matter of "stupid commies not being realistic enough", he's not just working for the status quo; just about every action he has taken since October 7th has been an escalation of conflict in the Middle East and made it worse for everyone living there. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

You can scold people for voting wrong as much as you want, but fundamentally the way that democrats can win elections is by pursuing good policy. If the only argument you can come up with in favor of Joe Biden is that he won't do 1 or 2 of the terrible things that Trump wants to do, then that will simply not appeal to the people who are most intensely affected by Biden's failures (not to mention people who have moral objections to genocide, even when it doesn't affect them). You can scream and cry all you want, people are not going to just overlook his role in the ethnic cleansing of Gaza just because he is the Less Bad Genocider.

If a republican wins the presidency in November, you can blame the hundreds of thousands of voters/nonvoters who should've agreed with you and put aside every moral concern they ever had about the Biden administration... or you can blame the one fucking guy whose massive foreign policy failures are going to tank his re-election campaign.

[phillyoldtimer]

The Biden White House has been in disarray. They are about to pay the price. Because this White House assassination talk has left Washington, D.C. in chaos. Everyone who is remotely paying attention to the way the Biden administration treats the media knows that they will not cooperate with anyone who isn’t explicitly on “their […]

[dhaaruni]

"The limits of vote blue no matter who are on display" type of attitude is why the Democratic Party has been losing power since the late 60's and now mainly has to play clean-up to Republicans. If you think your righteousness is more important than competence, of actually being able to convince the public to vote for people that would enact your policies, then you're not being edgy, you're making the same mistake the left has been making for 55 years.

You're preaching to the choir man.

Matthew Yglesias is yelling on Twitter about how Democrats are absolutely fucked when it comes to the Senate after 2022 (and the electoral college as well if we don't win 54% of the popular vote) unless we change our M.O. and he's right:

We need to win more white rural/no-college voters, there's no way around it, and we have to pick something to moderate on socially because giving that group free shit while staying this far left on social issues isn't helping us do better with them, which we absolutely need to do.

Latino voters are also becoming a huge thorn in Dems' side because being remotely progressive on immigration and crime and abortion (not nearly as much as activists want obviously) is driving them straight to the GOP. If Bill Nelson did better with Latinos in Florida in 2018, we wouldn't have Manchin as the deciding vote in the Senate. If Biden did as well as Hillary Clinton with Florida Latinos, he'd have won the state. See what I mean?

And, Biden's approval rating in every single swing state is in the toilet right now, and the media obviously isn't helping that with their coverage of Afghanistan and the COVID-19 vaccine rollout and poor Major Biden, but it's also because Biden being as progressive as he is doesn't appeal to a majority of this country. Biden ran as a moderate and is governing like a liberal and all the people that voted for Biden because Trump was personally repulsive to them but they had no problem with George W. Bush are pissed, and given Biden's margin in the EC was less than 43,000 votes across WI, AZ, and GA, we can't lose that group.

Idk, the American electorate is bugging me and I'm not sure how I can fix it.

[lercymoth]

Im not going to say who posted this but I need to make one thing clear. The only ones afraid when Trump became president were minorities, including blacks and Hispanics, LGBTQ people, free speech advocates, and so many other people, and they had a VERY good reason to. The only reason people would be afraid now is because of either guns (and tbh I dont think gun control will get all that far in any meaningful way) or because now racism is going to be less popular, homophobia less tolerated, police brutality more punished (hopefully), innocent children being caged up less tolerated, concentration camps (hopefully) undone, fascism less tolerated, and of course, people are afraid that black lives will matter.

They're also afraid that now people are going to have an easier time surviving because the wealthy elite have infected people's brain with the idea people need to fend for solely themselves with no support as an excuse to exploit people for profit with overpriced healthcare and college.

Maybe one day Trump supporters will realize they were played, mere pawns in a scheme to keep people pawns at the bottom of the food chain. Hopefully they'll come to the realization they turned them against their own brothers and sisters just so plutocrats could get stronger through money. (But of course, the racists and homophobes dont care, because they voted for Trump for a different reason).

This day gives me a lot of hope. I've grown tired of having to argue that people deserve basic human rights, basic necessities, and all people should be treated equally (and that fascism is bad), and I know this isn't the end of it. This country's history and these last four years have left this nation scarred, brainwashed, and divided. But after Nazi Germany fell, people realized what had been done to them. I hope this country will be the same. Too many people died this year, and so many things regarding this country have been inexcusable, and were excused by making people think it was even remotely okay. This can't happen again, but I'm glad we put a stop to it before it could get worse. This was a huge victory for the working class and the people. I know Biden isn't perfect, and we need to make sure when Biden tries anything bad to not stand for it. I hope that now we'll see less people arguing against human rights. Thank you everyone who helped make this day possible. Im so grateful. I love you all.

[casquecest]

@pocketsizedquasar-3

I'm choosing to believe this post was made in good faith, and I debated whether to let it go, but decided that shit is too important right now to let your misinformation slide, so. . .

Mate, do you even remember the 2016 election? The primaries leading up to it? How Clinton's platform shifted left after she won the primaries because of how strong the support for Sanders's proposals (and Sanders himself) were? That's not even remotely abandoning progressives and courting the right.

How in 2020, Biden also shifted to pledging support for student loan debt forgiveness/relief (which he did sign an executive order to enact, which was subsequently struck down by Republican judges, but he and his administration has continued to try to push forward through other channels, and has had limited success in doing).

The Green New Deal and rejoining the Paris Agreement? The infrastructure bill? The support for unions? Consumer advocacy in various and sundry ways, like mandating airlines automatically fully refund you via the method in which you paid (so, not vouchers or air credits) if your domestic flight is delayed more than three hours, or reinstating regulations that were suspended during the Trump administration? Caps on prescription drug prices? These are all things the Democrats have done in the last four years. You can't tell me, in good faith, that this is a party that isn't at least trying to help people, that this is a party that isn't listening to its constituents. All of the aforementioned successes of the Democratic party are a shift left from where they were even ten years ago.

On NO POLICY WHATSOEVER is Kamala Harris to the right of Donald Trump. Where are you even getting that?! It's so patently absurd as to be laughable, or you're just wildly misinformed.

Your view of 'why should I care about them [Democrats] winning?' is myopic, childish, and selfish (even without your facts being completely backwards). You should care because the alternative is infinitely worse for not just this country, but the world, including Gaza. When you have Trump saying that Harris is restraining Netanyahu with her constant demands for a cease-fire, with withholding certain weapons, that the Biden-Harris administration are 'holding [Netanyahu] back,' and that he, Trump, would have Israel take a 'total victory,' and that it be done quick, that he's 'glad that Bibi decided to do what he had to do,' and that the whole operation is 'moving along pretty good,' I think that paints a stark difference in how the two potential administrations would approach the situation once in office. I understand and recognise that Harris's promises of a solution where Palestinians are afforded the dignity and self-determination they deserve are next to meaningless to a people who are currently being slaughtered in their homes and have been for over a year, and oppressed for decades (I do think the current administration is not doing nearly enough to help Palestinians and doing too much to support Israel (because, let's be real, Israel is too important a geopolitical foothold in the region for US interests for the US to abandon it or hold it too strongly to account, and, morally, that is reprehensible and completely disgusting, but that's the reality of it), but when you contrast that with Trump, who doesn't seem to acknowledge at all that there is Palestinian suffering, or that Palestinians deserve anything at all, I do think that makes a difference.

Why it should matter to you whether Democrats win is that Trump says he will use the National Guard and/or the American military on his 'political enemies', who could change at the drop of one of his 'weaves'. It should matter to you that he asked why the National Guard couldn't 'just shoot [BLM protesters] in the legs' in 2020. It should matter to you that he's promising to lock up journalists and anyone who criticises him. It should matter to you because it is the President who appoints Supreme Court Justices, and we've already seen the fallout of Trump-appointed Justices reversing Roe v. Wade, in determining the US President is immune from prosecution for crimes committed in office. It should matter to you that Democrats win because his first administration dismantled a lot of the guardrails that kept the US a democracy, as flawed as it is, and the Republicans are so cowardly they did nothing to stop it, and actually helped enable it. It should matter to you that several major newspapers have refused to endorse any candidate for fear of Trump reprisals should he get in office. It should matter to you that he wants to revoke the broadcast licenses of any network who says 'not nice' things about him. It should matter to you that these are direct attacks on our Constitution, especially one that is most fundamental to the US: the freedom of speech. It should matter to you that he's promising to deport 15-20 million 'illegals', and that he's already harpooned a bill that would have at least addressed the immigration issue.

It should matter to you that Democrats win because, if they don't, we will end up with a man that has no interest in governing, but in dictating, purely for his own fragile ego and to stay out of jail.

And that's not even getting into Project 2025.

You're going to vote, or not vote, however you like, but you're a damned fool if you think Kamala Harris would be worse for this country and the world than Donald Trump.

Third party voters don't currently have enough consolidated power, nor consensus, for any electoral victory, but they do have enough to play spoiler in each individual state, which can swing the entire election, and this kind of bullshit is trying to swing people away from voting for Harris, from actively going against Trump via their vote. You don't have to like her. You don't even have to agree with her, but you have to recognise that one choice is clearly and objectively better than the other for everyone.

due to systemic oppression, usamerican leftists don't currently have the political power to instate a leftist president. we do, however, have enough power to make one of two candidates lose the election. we could use this power to make the white supremacist lose to the black woman, or we could use it to make the black woman lose to the white supremacist. the obvious choice for leftists would be to prioritize making the white supremacist lose, but tumblr users have devised a loop hole, where they agitate primarily for making the black woman lose, but omit the detail about who she would be losing to. this makes their stance more palatable to people who correctly believe that having a white supremacist president would be the worst possible outcome.

[qqueenofhades]

the reason people prefer bernie over warren isn't that she used to be a republican, most people genuinely believe the positions she holds now. it's just that those positions A) aren't going to get her elected in a general election, because she comes across as wishywashy on medicare for all, which is much more popular among most americans than centrists think, and republican are GREAT at exploiting the wishy-washy B) isn't gonna cut it with us lefty dems either. bernie polls better against trump.

Hello there! Thank you for your contribution! *

As most people who follow me know, I am not a Political Discourse ™ blog in the usual course of things, and despise Discourse in general. Time is short, lives are precious, and usually arguing with people about politics on the internet is about the most unproductive use of such ever devised. But because you did arrive in my inbox with this opinion, which perfectly exemplifies the dangerous thinking that I was referring to in this post, which I presume is the reason for the pleasure of your company, we’re going to have a chat. I’m going to keep the snark to a minimum, because I am really not a fan of stoking Democratic tribalism or “my candidate is better than your candidate and I can’t vote for anyone else” pissing contests. That being indeed precisely what I was arguing in the above post, and the point of which, alas, you seem to have grasped but dimly. I am therefore going to go through this, because it needs to be deconstructed, and while I may make no impact on you, because I suspect your mind is made up, I am fortunate enough to have a decent following on this blog and maybe someone else will benefit from it. Who knows. The other option is Trump.

So.

Let’s take this one at a time. See for example your first claim, “Elizabeth Warren comes across as wishy-washy on Medicare for All.”

Well….

Have you tried going to her website (elizabethwarren.com) typing in “Medicare for All” and being redirected to the following document? It took me approximately eight seconds to find. It is also not just an attention-grabbing header. The full strategic plan below, when pasted into Microsoft Word, runs to an impressive goddamn 19 pages and almost 8,000 words. It outlines exactly what she will do to achieve this and concludes:

Medicare for All is the best way to guarantee health care to all Americans at the lowest cost. I have a plan to pay for it without raising taxes on middle class families, and the transition I’ve outlined here will get us there within my first term as president. Together, along with additional reforms like my plans to reduce black maternal mortality rates, ensure rural health care, protect reproductive rights, support the Indian Health Service, take care of our veterans, and secure LGBTQ+ equality, we will ensure that no family will ever go broke again from a medical diagnosis – and that every American gets the excellent health care they deserve.

Hmm. Focusing specifically on African-American maternal mortality rates, rural health care, protecting reproductive rights, support for Native Americans, vets, and LGBTQ people? I understand, however, that this can’t cut it with “us lefty Dems,” which you proclaim with the proud assurance that you and the Twitter circles of your acquaintance are in fact the only ones. I’m also… not entirely sure which candidate you’re confusing Warren with, since there are two (2) progressive candidates in this nightmare of white no-name and/or billionaire milquetoast male moderates. Their names are Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. And every single Warren fan I know is willing to vote for Sanders if he gets the nomination, including me. I made a public pledge to vote for the Democratic candidate even if it’s Goddamn Joe Biden. You can see it here. If you are going to demand miles of receipts for Warren before you consider voting for her (and when her positions are similar to or in several cases, particularly for women, MUCH BETTER than Sanders, yes I said it), then you’re really not going to like what it looks like for the other candidates in this race. Also, are you asking these questions for Sanders, your own preferred nominee?

Next, you…. you do realize the privilege that is dripping off this ask, right? The exact thing of which I also addressed in the previous discussion:

The modern American Republican party has become a vehicle for no-holds-barred power for rich white men at the expense of absolutely everything and everyone else, and if your rationale is that you can’t vote for the person opposing Donald Goddamn Trump is that you’re just not vibing with them on the language of that one policy proposal… well, I’m glad that you, White Middle Class Liberal, feel relatively safe that the consequences of that decision won’t affect you personally.

That is…. at least as presented in this ask, exactly what’s happening here. You’re saying that you (and this mythic America/Lefty Dems ™ of which you grandly extrapolate) can’t vote for Elizabeth Warren because you’re just not vibing with her on the language of a policy proposal which she enthusiastically supports and has written a detailed 20-page manifesto on how to achieve? You really, really believe, deep down in your Bernie Bro Internet Politics bones, that you cannot vote for the smart, fearless, extra-qualified Democratic woman opposing the bankrupt reality star rapist who is literally a Neo-Nazi white supremacist whose administration is wrecking the planet and putting children in cages at the border? To name just one of the Scandal-A-Days that this nightmare administration churns out? Because the Lefty Dems (and please do not lump me and the other active leftist Democrats I know into whatever you’ve got going on here) just won’t stand for that?

Do you even hear yourself?

Did we learn nothing at all from 2016???

I’m going to guess that I’m older than you. I’m not sure whether that matters, but there’s that. It means I remember 9/11, the Bush years, the financial crash of 2008, and how this already went once before. I have also just moved back to the United States after almost half a decade in the United Kingdom, which is currently experiencing its same slow-motion disintegration into hard-right economic isolationism, xenophobia, and late-stage capitalist oligarchy. I’m also a professional historian. So it means that I, for better or worse, have a certain perspective on this, the overall patterns, the way the world has stumbled into this destructive consumerist capitalist 21st century, and what it’s doing to us.

We do not have much time left to fix any of this. I don’t care if it sounds alarmist, it’s true. If you are younger than me, this is also going to become disproportionately your generation’s problem. Rigid intellectual purity tests are exactly the thing that is preventing the left from mobilizing behind one candidate to get Donald Fucking Trump and his cabal of shameless criminals out of there before they kill the lot of us. And I’m not going to back down from saying that mindsets like the one perfectly exemplified in your ask are far more helpful to the Republicans than they are to any of us.

I have said it before, I’ll say it again: I will vote for, donate money to, and raise awareness about whoever the Democratic nominee is. If it’s Sanders, I’m going to friggin’ become a Bernie or Buster. Because at that point, his opponent would be Trump!!! If I am living in a state where it would remotely make a difference in November 2020, since at the moment I’m in Bumfuck Red State Nowhere, I would consider canvassing or volunteering for the campaign, and I am a severe introvert with social anxiety who hates talking to people when I don’t have to. And if I am willing to do this, and you and Lefty Dems ™ of your hallowed intellectual proclivities are sitting on your backsides and bitching about how Warren seems wishy-washy on Medicare for All, well then. One of us is more the problem than the other one, and it isn’t me.

(Also. once again, Bernie Sanders is eighty years old and just had a heart attack. Sorry. That remains an issue for me. There’s a year to go of grueling non-stop campaigning before the general, if he wins the primary. I’m not convinced.)

In conclusion, I have recently adopted a policy of donating a few dollars to Elizabeth Warren every time someone appears in my inbox or notifications with a comment like this. So when I thanked you for your contribution at the start of this post, I was in fact thanking you for your extra-generous donation today, December 10, 2019, to Elizabeth Warren for President:

Peace.

[tacofriend]

A lot of people have been saying "go vote" but I'm going to tell you that you not only need to vote, but

you need to vote for the democrats.

Republicans have made it clear that they want to create a christofascist nation in which anyone who is poor, queer, disabled, non white, or non Christian becomes a second class citizen, if not an illegal human being to be hunted for sport.

This isn't some conspiracy. This is what the republican party is. They have showed their hand. They don't believe in democracy; they care about a flawed system of government that they can twist to their advantage. They don't believe in your freedom; they believe in their freedom to limit your freedom. They don't believe in your religious freedom; they believe in their own religious freedom to persecute anyone outside of their church. They don't care about safety, they care about keeping their pure white society from any threat to their fragile belief system.

If you vote for the republican party you are actively making society worse and I honestly don't want to ever speak to you again.

"But I agree with their economic policies just not their culture." Their economic policies are bullshit and they don't work, unless your goal is to funnel as much money as possible into the hands of a few billionaires.

"But the democrats are going to [insert radical Leftist policy]." As Sophie from Mars said about Cyberpunk 2077. The Democratic party is dad rock not punk rock. They are establishment politicians who would never give up their power or do anything remotely radical or even cool.

"But Hunter Biden, pizzagate, qanon, Alex Jones." You have fallen for a conspiracy theory. You have fallen for a lie. I know. I was there too. I believed that Obama was going to put chips in people when I was in high school because I was stuck in a church that peddled those conspiracy theories all the time. They said it would happen in 2015 and we all needed to either prepare to sell our souls to Satan or never be able to buy anything again. I went to college and left that church, and realized that no one was talking about it. No one was talking about it BECAUSE IT WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN! IT WAS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN! I was lied to by people who were trying to weaponize my fear to vote a black man out of office so the republican party could take control and do whatever they want. I fell for it. I know that these theories seem real. I know that they seem scary. They are l lies. I know how scary it is to disbelieve, or to leave that community. I know because I did it. I'm not afraid of those things anymore. I have friends who love me for who I am. You can escape. I did.

[empressofevil]

I find it funny how North American politics has really slipped from "but is he the best man for the job?" to "anyone can do it as long as they're in the right party." I mean, really, who was a big fan of Biden? Who was saying "that's my guy" while he yelled at citizens asking him questions, lied about his past and beliefs, sexually harassed and assaulted women, and praising war crimes? Last year we were making memes about him burying dogs, now people are calling him a saviour. Don't get me wrong, Canada isn't any better, we did the same thing with Trudeau to end Harper's 12 year reign, but he did lean left enough to legalise weed and promise universal basic standard income (not delivered), and the blackface thing didn't come out until after he was in office. I have little doubt he'd get re-elected if he called for another campaign, but because if how canpol works, you're going to see him in office for a while. But literally no one was even remotely interested in Biden until he was selected as the dem candidate. He was not the person with the most interesting platform or promising career; he was senile, racist old Joe. It's fascinating how putting anyone - literally anyone - up against a demon makes them look like an angel, even another demon. It's amazing how a two party system rots the brain into thinking one choice MUST be better than the other, and that you're somehow bound to option a or b (again, Canada isn't any better for this, neither is the UK, and I'd guess most democratic countries in general). I truly no not think that, had Biden been up against anyone else, he would have ever been considered a candidate for presidency. The fact that he was VP was already laughable enough, and Obama just did it to please racist centrists, not because they had remotely compatible political careers. Again, not that Obama is an angel, but up against 8 years of Bush Jr., there was a bit of a glow, no? When you put him next to McCain, the man had wings! I'm sorry, but there are no angels in politics. You will never elect the right man who leads you into a golden age of prosperity and peace - it doesn't serve them to serve you. There are no angels in politics, only demons.

[vaelynx]

Their solution to "end the war in Ukraine" is to withdraw aid and allow Russia to invade. It's literally pro-Genocide. So we're already starting out with the dumbest take possible. Not looking good for you.

Yeah, I think I know what to expect here now and it certainly is nothing smart. But, let's start. There is no genocide happening in Ukraine now, there is *war*, and in fact, genocide wasn't happening even before the war started. What however happened was military action by AFU aimed against the civillian residents of Doneck and Lugansk people's republics, ignoring the ceasefire and Minsk agreements as a whole - so Russia rendered them aid, which they asked for, striking against the illegitimate Kyjev government in defense of their self-determination and in protection of their citizenry.

And if you point out that it is nations, not nationalities that have a right of self-determination, well, that used to be true before what happened with Kosovo, so it is very much your precedent Russia made use of.

Try again.

Tariffs are just going to make things more expensive for the working class and no one else. That manufacturing isn't coming home. It'll just move to countries other than China where it's still more profitable for major corporations and the supply chain.

Where have I heard this stupid argument last. Oh wait, all the neoliberal think-tanks. In fact, this is a rehash of the already idiotic argument against increasing the minimum wage, tooted by all the neoliberal think-tanks. Let's examine why it doesn't work.

a) The government can go around increasing tariffs against specific goods (it's easy if, at the moment, the countries in question aren't actually exporters, to prevent a *subsequent* move) right until the aforementioned countries run out of cheap labour to exploit.

b) Things aren't going to get significantly more expensive for the working class for the same reason minimum wage hikes don't lead to that. You see, if the corporations felt they could hike up their prices and make a greater profit that way, *they already would have*. Taking the cost of materials and manufacture and slapping a profit margin on top is how prices are generated in a socialist economy, not in capitalism, and this is a textbook example of demagogy - advancing a fallacious argument, not because the originator is fooled but because he believes his audience is.

c) Allowing manufacturing to depart abroad in the first place was perhaps the worst decision anyone could have taken as it neatly hollowed out US economy and is the very reason the working class has been pauperized and can't afford anything but the cheapest, which creates a vicious circle that you can't get out of without government intervention. And, again, Vance has correctly pointed this out.

Look, I can break this down further, but it's clear we're dealing with someone who has fallen down right wing talking points so badly that any discussion is useless. They think the GOP, the party where folks want to remove bodily autonomy and are mad about women voting, is somehow "left."

Nah, we're dealing with someone who isn't blinded by party slogans. And uh, don't get me started on bodily autonomy because weren't the democrats pushing for vaccine mandates *on an experimental product that was repeatedly lied about*? Doesn't sound like bodily autonomy at all. Furthermore, all I've seen from the GOP on a federal level is allowing states to decide on the matter, which strikes me as something which should be true on as many topics as possible in the first place

Finally, yes, I think the current presidential candidate and his crew are more left-wing than the democrats, since they're the only ones remotely circling around the idea of doing things to benefit the working class, and to rein in the big business that has been writing US policy up to now. They're not *very* left-wing, but distinctly more so than the wing of corporate democrats represented by Kamala, Biden, Clintons etc.

Leftists don't win by allowing extreme right wing candidates to win the White House. Instead you keep pressuring Democrats 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.

Don't be absurd. Biden touted a student loan forgiveness plan before the last election, then plain out said he's not going to forgive any student loans and sent tons of money into Ukraine instead (which flowed mostly back in to the military-industrial complex, and to democrat kickbacks) and he's suddenly working on it again, with earliest mentions being like, eight months before the election. They say fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, and this is basically a showcase for this principle.

We know it works because that's exactly what the Republicans have been doing for 50 years.

Well... that's the thing. Democrats sabotaged Bernie Sanders, then, after an election failure, ended up, among other things, bringing in a couple actually left figures into the forefront... then for Biden's VP chose the candidate literally nobody wanted (based on her performance in the primaries) and now used a sleight-of-hand to give her the nomination without primaries. If you think this is a party that is interested in your opinion any... my condolences.

And don't listen to weirdos who try to tell you Donald "Finish the Job" Trump and JD "Incel Couchfucker" Vance are somehow leftist.

*applauds* I knew you weren't smart, but ending the post with a personal attack (and an incredibly unimaginative, DNC-prescribed one to boot), which also somehow includes calling a married guy with kids an "incel" shows that you're a plain idiot. Thank you for broadcasting it to the world, saves me some typing.

This is the thing with the "I won't vote for Harris" supposed leftists.

None of them will tell you how allowing Trump to be elected helps.

Because they don't have an answer.

Because they don't really care about anything other than how they personally feel.

Actual leftism involves making pragmatic moves. The public will for revolution doesn't exist, and we live in a two party system. If you want to fight that system, great. There are things like ranked choice voting and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact we need to be fighting for. But those are fights that have to happen year round, at the state level, and not just in an election year.

And in the meanwhile, you vote defensively and strategically, in an attempt to save as many people as possible.

Saying you aren't voting for Harris isn't taking a stand against genocide. It's putting your head in the sand and admitting you care more about your own comfort than making a difference in the world.

Why aren't you getting involved in your local politics? Why aren't you running leftist candidates at a local level, so you can move them up in the system and eventually move the political discussion left. You want to know why politics have moved right? It's because the right wing has been doing that for decades.

Your refusal to participate won't save a single life.

It only means you're abandoning everyone else.

[dhaaruni]

I think Bernie was trying to play the Long Game with Latinx voters (who his campaign did make significant outreach to)... but those guys don't have the spread that Black voters do, and they're more likely to split for conservatives anyhow (even if you subtract Florida's Cubans).

Yeah, a major part of the issue with Bernie focusing on the Latinx community (and yes I know Latinx is ~contentious but also you used it so I'm following your lead lol) is first of all that Latinx voters are not a monolith. Young Hispanics in Arizona vote very differently than Cubans and Venezuelans in Florida, and one group is much more likely to vote than the other, and it's not the 20-somethings in Arizona.

Debbie Mucarsel-Powell wrote this excellent op-ed about how her district swung from D+16 in 2016 to R+6 and of course, she got raked through the coals for it by leftists. If Democrats can maintain our numbers with Black people and get Hillary Clinton level Latinx support and aim to get Bill Clinton level white support, we'd be unbeatable but that's basically impossible to do at this point in time.

Plus, Bernie may have done well with Latinx voters in Texas in the 2020 primaries but that group swung hard right in the general election not because Biden was too far right but because he was too far left for them! They're virulently anti-choice already since many are devoutly Catholic, and combined with 2020 specific things like COVID-19 lockdowns and the focus on Black Lives Matter (they didn't appreciate the focus on the Black community), they decided Trump was the better option. Plus, non-white voters always swing to the incumbent like Obama 2012 and Bush 2004 and Clinton 1996 all benefited from this trend.

The Latinx community is often also really socially conservative, especially in Texas and Florida, which have two of the largest Latinx populations, and are also extremely leery of socialism. This piece was really eye-opening:

There's also the fact the main issues Bernie focused on with the Latinx community that differentiated him from like, Biden or Pete Buttigieg, namely illegal immigration and things like #AbolishICE (which he actually backed off on when he realized how unpopular it is with even liberals, and annoyed AOC), don't help win over a significant number of people who can actually vote in American elections. Pathways to citizenship seem great in theory but the uncomfortable truth is that people who aren't citizens can't vote in elections, and the people who are most supportive of pathways to citizenship, especially for illegal immigrants, are a) non-citizens, b) donor class white liberals who are well to the left of the Democratic base, and c) activists who are major outliers on every level and I'm not talking Dolores Huerta here, who was a prominent Clinton surrogate.

I think a lot of white liberals really ignore how badly illegal immigration polls, with white people who make up 60.1% of the country but also with legal immigrants who are now American citizens, sometimes a few generations removed. There are a whole lot of Asian and South Asian Americans who vote Democrat solely because the Republican party is racist towards Asian-Americans. These people are often socially indifferent, they don't like taxes, and they don't remotely care if people are racist to Black and Latinx and indigenous populations, they care if their own in-group faces racism! Bush almost won Asian voters in 2004, and he got 44% of the Hispanic vote! These people are all cool with Republicans in power as long as the GOP isn't yelling kung-flu at random Chinese-Americans and calling all Mexicans rapists and not just illegal immigrants, which quite frankly, a lot of people would have been fine with even if they wouldn't admit it online.

But yeah, the simple reason that Bernie doing well with Latinx voters in the primary really doesn't matter is that Biden and Obama did okay with the group despite Obama being the "deporter in chief," and Hillary dominated so clearly mainstream Democrats aren't suffering with the demographic even if Biden underperformed due to socialism among other issues.

And, another key point that nobody who's remotely supportive of illegal immigration (or defunding the police for that matter) was ever in danger of voting Republican in the first place. And, there are a whole lot more Republican-lite, Democrat-amenable voters who are actively turned off by both of those things or at least use them as an excuse to not vote for Democrats, which still results in Democrats not getting their vote and given how hard it is for us to win federal elections, we can't keep losing gettable votes.

If we do the basic cost-benefit analysis, getting Republican-lite, Democrat-amenable voters is more valuable to Dems federally than pandering to activist types because the moderates always vote, even during midterms, and the leftist activist types purity test and yell about Dems earning their vote and there aren't even enough of them to make it worth the effort of catering to them. Even if some leftists stay at home or protest vote over Dems not supporting things that poll underwater, if Dems win moderates and independents (who skew conservative) by a large enough margin, the activist vote is statistically insignificant and Joe Biden for one knows this well.

The reason Bernie-> Stein voters (and Bernie -> Trump voters of course) damaged Hillary so badly in 2016 is that she bombed with white people, especially white men, and it's impossible to win the electoral college while winning 31% of white men even if you get 98% of Black women to vote for you like HRC did. If HRC had Biden's numbers with white men (she even did better with white women and literally every other racial group), she'd have coasted to an easy victory.

Sorry, this got crazy long but I couldn't sleep and I hope it was a good explanation!