Isn't an election the definition of a zero sum game? People are either voting for you, your opponents, or not at all.
thoro
joined 4 years ago
This was a referendum on neoliberal business as usual and they lost, hard.
You would have thought people in this country would have learned that in 2016 when Trump ran against NAFTA and with a populist message that, yes, used immigrants as a scapegoat.
But the neoliberal elite of the party continue to show nothing but disdain for populism, evidenced by how they treated Bernie and choosing candidates who literally run on nothing "fundamentally" changing.
Seeing that fact and choosing not looking inward at the party but instead chastising the laymen is exactly why Democrats lose. OP's post is endemic of the problem.
Hey look, someone who learned nothing in 2016 and continues to show they've learned nothing in this election too.
I'm sure the chastisements and lectures are going to help with dispelling the notion that the Democratic party is a party of smug elitists.
All the exit polls in swing states were showing only 40% or less approve of Biden. You think the outcome would have been any different?
You can blame us for this application, sure. Having an impact on the results of this election? Unlikely
Don't forget Hispanics!
ITT: excuses
If you live in a democracy with first past the poll elections with an electoral college, then you should understand how the system works and vote accordingly.
If you understand, then you understand that only swing states matter and you're essentially free to vote as you feel in solid red or blue states.
Dick Cheney endorsed Kamala.
Neither of these facts alone necessarily implicate the candidates. You really have to consider the context. Being endorsed by someone hardly means you keep their company.
What is the point of comparing Helene to Katrina? Harvey was also a 4.
Why discount the impact of Katrina just because there were systematic issues? It was a natural disaster and that was the impact.
Because it comes off to me like you're trying to "well ackshully" about Helene being really the most devastating hurricane.
view more: next ›
They aren't perfect, and as stated elsewhere they are in a period of Dengist based socialism. However, they are extremely successful, very popular within their country from all sources that could be called evidence (especially compared to the US government), and do far less to acquiesce to the billionaires compared to West, seemingly (charging and sentencing billionaires for corruption, cracking down on financiers, etc). I think another user had a good point too about looking at the amount they have per capital.
They are the most successful nation practicing a form of socialism in the modern world and offering an alternative to liberal capitalism.
There's a reason it's called critical support.