A gentle reminder to not blame your allies today. The only person you should blame for Harris's loss is Kamala Harris (and maybe Joe Biden).
[alt text: a screenshot of a tweet by @delaney_nolan, which says, "Biden/Harris saw this polling and decided to keep unconditionally arming Israel". Below the tweet is a screenshot from an article, which states: "In Pennsylvania, 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if the nominee vowed to withold weapons to Israel, compared to 7% who said they would be less likely. The rest said it would make no difference. In Arizona, 35% said they'd be more likely, while 5% would be less likely. And in Georgia, 39% said they'd be more likely, also compared to 5% who would be less likely."]
Trump has repeatedly said Netanyahu can do as he pleases, has repeatedly disparaged all Muslims, has repeatedly shown a political kinship with dictatorships.
Biden/Harris were protest targets in spite of it being the entirety of Congress that votes on/gives foreign aid because these protests were propaganda bent on disenfranchising Democrats and nothing else. The protests will wither to nothing now that pants-sh1tter rapist is going to be president.
You were duped. You fell for it. Gaza has zero chance now.
And Trump will be better for Palestinians how exactly? Anyone who prefers inane grandstanding instead of picking the lesser evil (no matter the topic) is a moron. That's how politics work. The ideal candidate doesn't exist and will never exist. If you ever come across one who 100% mirrors every single one of your opinions, get your head examined.
Edit: Also, every single credible poll out there indicates that American voters - idiotically - picked Trump due to their dissatisfaction with the economy. Middle Eastern wars were not high on the list of priorities for most voters.
No, it can be more than one person's fault. It's Harris's fault, and it's also the fault of the people who decided fascism was an acceptable alternative to capitalist liberalism.
I steadfastly refuse to accept an apology on behalf of single-issue voters. Those abstentions and/or third party protest votes got us here. Anyone who refused to coalesce around (or at least hold their nose and vote for) the biggest "not Trump" candidate was failing to see or even acknowledge the bigger picture and larger threat. And now we all have to pay for that.
The electoral votes in a state go to the single candidate with the most votes. "Not Trump" was not a candidate. Furthermore, a third party candidate was never going to win. So, I will absolutely blame these so-called "allies" as I find them to be worse than the people who voted for Trump (at least they were honest about what they were doing).
I sincerely hope there is a future election where they have learned something from this. In the mean time, good luck everyone.
They made their decisions and you made yours. If you decided that we'd be better off with Trump, that's on you. Own it.
Putting Trump in office makes Gaza worse. He's promised us as much. Maybe you proved a point to the Democrats, and maybe you didn't. Maybe now they'll lean even harder to the center. Who knows. That's a gamble you took, and you made steep sacrifices to make that gamble.
Gambling with someone's life to make a political point does not make you their ally.
Hard to see people as allies who are willing to let the world burn because the only other option wasn't perfect. The campaign fucked up, for sure, but every voter that stayed home shares blame in this.
I'm sure the trans people whose lives are now in danger will sleep much better tonight knowing that the blood of those Palestinian children who are going to continue dying because Donald Trump has promised not to even try for a ceasefire isn't on your hands, because you didn't vote for Kamala Harris.
I'll remember how this was all Kamala's fault when Trump starts rounding people up. I'm sure it will bring me great comfort. I'm also sure it will bring great comfort to the people of Palesine because Trump DEFINITELY isn't going to keep arming Israel, and we know he's way more susceptible to public pressure than Harris would have been.
So so so many people keep pointing at Trump and saying "But he's the worst/we're all doomed/holy shit you need to vote blue no matter who" and comments about "perfect being the enemy of the good" so we should hold our nose and support Democrats.
I feel like I'm the only person who remembers how hyperbolic we all were about Mitt Romney or John McCain being existential threats to democracy. South Park literally made fun of everybody at the time pointing at how running such a divisive campaign let them distract the public from their real goal of stealing the Hope Diamond (obviously). How many of us would BEG for Romney at the top of the Republican ticket at this point?
So sure, Trump is the threat now. When are we supposed to stop rewarding mediocre neoliberalism then? If it wasn't 2016 or 2020 or 2024 then when? Trump will eventually die and some new Republican will take his place as the leader of the party. EVERY Republican will be the next existential threat and we'll be scolded and told to hold our nose yet again and vote for the Democrat. If someone can tell me the "end date" where I don't have to choose between the lesser of two evils, I'd love to know when that is.
I don't blame other citizens for voting how they do. Everyone has to decide for themselves their red lines for support and in the privacy of the voting booth who they want to support. I do blame Democratic leadership for not learning a single lesson from 2016 about hand picking candidates and browbeating everyone into thinking that's OK.
I mean, I feel like it is quite fair to blame the people who voted for Trump for Harris's loss tbh. I don't really buy the "the dems would win if they didn't just refuse to try to win over conservatives and instead promised to go all-in on progressive policy that I've seen lately. I wish we got more progressive policy too, but it's not like they don't have any idea what people want, they have whole teams of people whose job it is to figure out that kind of thing. If promising some more progressive policy was a clear winner, why wouldn't they do it? The answer I generally see implied or stated is that the dem establishment doesn't want that policy, but that isn't really an adequate explanation, because politicians are perfectly familiar with dishonesty. If supporting some progressive policy they didn't like would win them power, they'd just promise it and then just not do that thing upon getting elected. It's happened for state and congressional races before, so it's not like that's never been thought of.
I don't think Harris's loss is down to refusing to say the right words to inspire her base or anything like that, it's down to the fact that, somehow, Trump is very good at inspiring his. She gave it a decent shot, but it's very hard to win an election against a massive cult of personality. He, and the people that support him, are the problem here.
The same thing is looking like it's going to happen in Canada
Current Liberal government is going to hold out all support for a genocidal country doing genocidal things for no apparent obvious reason and any moderate voter out there will avoid them for them it.
It doesn't matter what your politics are ... if your political party openly and wholeheartedly wants to support something that does no benefit to your country, ruins the lives of others and supports a maniacal regime, and does it at the cost of millions and billions of dollars -> why would you want to vote for them?
I don't get it .... sure Israel is pretty important but why would political leaders obviously tank their entire prospects just to save the support of a country that has very little to do with their own other than to cost everyone money.
Having trouble seeing those who (non-)voted for ending democracy, women's rights, and oppression of LGBTQ+ and non-christians as allies. Not enthusiastic about the candidate? I don't care. If they're going to do less harm, they're the only ethical choice. The basic numbers showed that one of two candidates would win. Ignoring that and the suffering that would be caused to vulnerable groups by one candidate for ideological purity is a hard thing to forgive.
Sorry but is there a source for this poll? I’m curious how this data was collected? (And am always skeptical of data cited in a toot without a source).
Edit: Just saw it is said to be YouGov survey from
June with a small sample size, although no link is provided.