GlacialTurtle @ GlacialTurtle @lemmy.ml

Posts

61

Comments

66

Joined

11 mo. ago

Literally in the post you're responding on:

I also remind dipshit Democrat defenders to hold Democrats to account. They ran a failed election campaign. They decided adhering to genocide was more important than winning. This is how they respond to their base expecting literally anything of them, is to resent them and tell them to shut the fuck up and plead there isn’t anything they can do so they just have to roll over.

What is it with you fucking morons who incessantly turn every criticism of the Demcoratic party into some insane notion that purely by virtue of existing they are owed votes? That's not how politics works. That's not how election campaigns work. Also, do do you think the organisations doing this didn't campaign for Democrats? Do you have any reading comprehension?

You did nothing. Now, this is what you get.

Liberals and wishing harm on others when they fail.

"You did nothing" Did you phonebank? Did you go canvassing at all? Did you deliver or distribute campaign material? Did you incessantly post online enough about how it's your duty to vote Democrat, the most significant and important contribution to every election campaign?

No? Oh, you're just still whining months after the fact that because you saw liberal orgs that actually did campaign for Democrats are not satisfied with how Democrats are responding to Republicans and the excuses they keep making?

Well, this is what you get. Clearly you just didn't want it enough.

Liberals turning into "fake news!!" idiots when faced with direct quotes of Democrats literally telling their base to fuck off and stop expecting anything of them.

The article directly cites at least 2 liberal orgs directing people to call Democratic politicians to do as much as they can to oppose Republicans, and directly quotes multiple Democrats directly relating to this and trying to insist there's nothing they can do. I don't know what more you want.

They won't because they're the ones making money from it. The only reason they care about this is likely because they don't get money from ads as they don't have any related advertising business like Google and Apple does.

It's the same as when they kicked EA off of steam. EA allowed buying DLC without going through Steam. If they're not getting a cut, but you are being hosted/distributed by them, they don't want it.

There was absolutely zero chance that any politician with a chance of winning was going to side will Palestine. Full stop. The Harris campaign was the best option anyone had for any semblance of a peaceful resolution to this.

So there it is. You just get to declare genocide as inevitable to suggest other people shouldn't or can't care. It's always the same fucking bullshit - you're the noble Palestinian defender with their best interests at heart, whilst declaring them an acceptable target we should just not have to really care about or show any interest in. The typical Democrat approach of "I care about minorities only as far as I can throw them".

Trump wants to speed run the genocide so he can build a resort.

And according to yourself, Democrats were going to genocide them anyway. So what's with the faux concern? It was inevitable regardless. Anybody who cared just needed to suck it up and accept mass murder and expulsion of a people. Actually the Democrats lost because you cared too much.

As always, there's a scapegoat to show the Democrats can never fail. They can only be failed. It was Bernie bros in 2016 that singularly caused the Democrats to lose. Now in 2024 it's anybody who cared about Palestinians.

If Palestine was your single issue that caused you not to vote against fascism, you’re a moron and are complicit in the upcoming genocide in the US. Full stop.

Again, wild that dipshits like yourself don't hold Democrats in power to account. Are the Democrats not morons for refusing to budge on genociding Palestinians? Are Democrats not complicit in their actions and their campaigning? Democrats signed on to the Laken Riley act. Fetterman spent months taunting people who cared about Palestinians and calling everyone who criticised Israel terrorist supporters and Hamas. Democrats ran ads saying they're against trans people whilst also claiming to be defending and speaking for them. They ran anti-immigrant ads talking about immigrants stealing welfare. Kamala when asked about anti-trans laws answered "they should follow the law".

Because look what happened. Did sticking it to the Harris campaign change anything for the better at all?

Did Democratic leadership sticking it to their base and their voters change anything for the better at all? Look what happened. They still lost even after caping for genocide!

People aren’t controlled by political leaders. Choosing not to support the only legitimate option that wasn’t fascism is a stupid way to stick it to the leaders.

Who said they were?

Yes, the democrats ran a bad campaign, but that’s a shit excuse to not fight against fascism.

And the democrats had the most means to do so, including as part of an election campaign they fucked.

People like you lack any concept of prioritization. If someone throws a molotov cocktail through your window, you don’t try to fix the window before putting out the fire. If you let the house burn down you can never fix the window.

People like you lack any concept of power and responsibility, or systems and systemic thinking. You're right dude, it's me, the only person in the world who could have stopped fascism in the US by voting for Democrats, despite the actual voting numbers severely outnumbering me, and despite the fact that the campaign wasn't even (singularly) decided by people voting with regards to Palestine, and also despite me literally being in the UK and not having the legal or practical ability to vote in US elections, fucking numbnuts.

The only concept, and the only thing you seem to have the brain power for, is thinking exclusively in terms of individuals who you encounter online that you can shout at for criticising Democrats by suggesting it was their fault Democrats lost. Liberals right now are like someone who sees news of a horrific accident involving a lorry's brakes malfunctioning, crashing into oncoming traffic, who then go about roaming the streets lashing out at random lorry drivers shouting "YOU DID THIS!!!" as the appropriate response. And if anyone says "people who are in charge of the vehicles should bear some responsibility for the functioning of the lorries" you lash out at the person who says that and claim it's actually their fault now.

What drugs are you on?

Why is it so hard for you to hold people with power accountable for their own actions, as compared with incessantly lashing out at random voters online? Why are you liberals so head in the sand delusional that you refuse to engage with any insight or critique of the Demcoratic party, how it operates, and the decisions that leadership are clearly responsible for keep making?

I didn't decide what Kamalas campaign message was. I didn't decide how she spent the money. I didn't decide that ethnically cleansing Palestinians was too important a position to sacrifice after their own base and literally people within the state department told them repeatedly it was bad policy and bad electorally. No one single person or voter who you decide to fixate on and lash out at online because you got mad at seeing criticism of Democrats meaningfully changed the outcome of the election themselves. How Democrats chose to campaign did.

I don't know, ask the Democratic party if ushering in fascism was the solution to not wanting to move away from endorsing genocide. Ask the Democratic party if ushering in fascism was the solution to not wanting to run a campaign that might have put them at odds with the lobbyists who pay them, including Kamalas brother-in-law, Ubers chief legal counsel who helped run the campaign. Ask the Democratic party if ushering in fascism was worth moving right on immigration and trans rights only to lose anyway.

There’s also the idiot Arabic groups that helped get Trump in power by demonizing Harris then are all shocked Pikachu when Trump turned out to be exponentially worse.

"Demonising Harris" here is a shitty euphemism for "Democrats refused to stop supporting genocide then told any and all voters, but especially Arab voters who might have particularly cared, to fuck off", with the shocked pikachu in practice being Democrats who are surprised when telling voters to fuck off over concerns about genocide did not help them turn out the vote to beat Trump.

Then being racist about those same minorities by blaming the election loss on "Arabic groups" after monstering them as saboteurs and belittling their concerns repeatedly.

Almost like anyone with 2 brain cells could have told you that's both bad policy and bad campaign strategy.

In an Oct. 16 memo, the leading super PAC supporting Ms. Harris raised alarms about being outspent on television. The group, Future Forward, said in the memo, which was first reported by The Washington Post, that it would be “difficult for anyone” but the Harris team to close the gap because of the higher ad rates that super PACs pay.

It was hardly Future Forward’s only frustration. Another memo, issued days later, pointed out “very high-performing ads that have yet to get a big spend.” One ad, Future Forward said, had ranked in the “100th percentile” — meaning it was the most effective — yet it had virtually never been aired.

Campaign officials, meanwhile, were frustrated that Future Forward sat on so much of its money until the final weeks, forcing the campaign to spend more on the airwaves earlier.

Another Harris challenge: After raising $1 billion in less than three months, a bevy of consultants, allies and others were often angling for a cut, including the chairman of the Democratic Party in Philadelphia. In September, the Harris operation contributed almost $25 million to other party committees, in part to quiet those demands.

Some media allies of Ms. Harris were also paid. Areva Martin, who hosts a talk show, was paid $200,000 as a media consultant, and she went on a battleground-state tour in October.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/us/politics/harris-campaign-finances.html

Typical left-wing economic agenda items like “living wage,” “affordable housing,” “paid family leave,” or “union jobs” dropped out of Harris’s vocabulary in the weeks after Labor Day. Tracking the use of more neutral terms relating to the economy — like “wages,” “jobs,” and “workers” — we see a trend line that slopes upward into early September before declining over the following weeks. By October, Harris was spending less of her time campaigning with Shawn Fain and Bernie Sanders than she was with Republican Liz Cheney and billionaire Mark Cuban, unlikely candidates to push any kind of progressive economic message, let alone a populist one. Cuban was gleeful enough to declare that the “progressive principles . . . of the Democratic Party . . . are gone. It’s Kamala Harris’s party now.”

This pivot wasn’t merely rhetorical: donors, consultants, and business-connected campaign staff pushed Harris to “clarify” or de-emphasize previous statements indicating support for a slate of popular policies on price controls; capital gains, corporate, and wealth taxes; and a host of other issues. Harris’s vague suggestions that she would engage in price controls to bring down inflation were watered down into a policy that already exists in most states that prevents businesses from profiteering on natural disasters. Her gestures toward taxing the wealthy became a capital gains tax proposal of 28 percent, far lower than the Biden administration’s proposed 40 percent; and she never took a position on Biden’s proposal to tax unrealized capital gains. And as time went on, the candidate spoke less and less frequently about her watered-down price-gouging proposal or her commitment to taxing the rich.

https://jacobin.com/2024/11/harris-campaign-economic-populism-democracy/

While in Michigan, Clinton criticized Palestinian and Arab-Americans who oppose the Biden-Harris Administration’s support for Israel’s war on Gaza, which has killed at least that 43,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, and rendered much of Gaza uninhabitable.

In a speech yesterday, Clinton argued that Israel was justified in not keeping “score” of civilian casualty counts in Gaza due to Hamas’ October 7th attack. He also claimed civilians have been killed because they were used as human shields despite the fact the Israeli government has engaged in what even President Biden admitted was “indiscriminate” bombing, destroying mosques, churches, schools, hospitals, and refugee camps.

He also justified Biden administration’s support for the Israeli government’s genocide in Gaza by arguing that Israelis had lived near Gaza since “before [Islam] existed,” citing King David and referring to the Holy Land as “Judea and Samaria,” a term used by far-right Israelis who oppose a Palestinian state. Clinton stated that President Biden was fulfilling his “duty” to Israel by providing unconditional military support.

https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-condemns-bill-clintons-insulting-and-islamophobic-justification-of-gaza-genocide/

"Arabic groups" didn't decide the Democratic parties campaign message. "Arabic groups" didn't decide where Democrats spent their campaign money. "Arabic groups" didn't ask for Bill Clinton to lecture them about Judea and Samaria and how it belongs to Israel, nor did "Arabic groups" emphasise running an entire slate of Republicans at the DNC, whilst refusing just one Palestinian American speaker that would have effectively endorsed Harris on behalf of the uncommitted movement on stage. "Arabic groups" didn't tell Democrats to downplay their economic messaging for fear of upsetting lobbyists and rich donors feelings.

Apologies, it came across as sarcastic but in the direction of defending DNC.

Cool that people making a principled stand to engage with a political party to encourage a change in policy are at fault for the leaders of that political party refusing to change policy, despite being told at multiple levels, for a multitude of reasons, including electorally, why that policy was bad.

Liberals hate democracy. Expecting to engage with a political party to affect change? Ew, just tick the box with a D next to it regardless of what they do or say. Don't you know trying to engage with a party that doesn't listen to its base or membership might lead to bad PR and might hurt them in an election? How could you be so inconsiderate? Your role is just to sit down and do nothing and accept whatever they say is true on MSNBC.

Because Democrats have done nothing to pressure him into changing his position, and Democrats like Fetterman have absolutely been at the forefront of all the attempts to blame people who cared about Palestinians enough to try and get Democrats to change policy for their campaign and policy failures.

The White House routinely makes mutually exclusive statements about its desire to “end the war,” while saying Hamas could “have no role in postwar Gaza.” Yet no mainstream reporter, editor, or opinion writer bothers to reconcile this contradiction. This calculated vagueness is central to why Israel is permitted to continue bombing and killing at will for an indefinite amount of time. How can US officials simultaneously push for an “immediate, lasting ceasefire” while, at the same time, saying the other warring party must be completely defeated before they can support a lasting ceasefire?

This isn’t a call for a ceasefire—it’s a call for, in Netanyahu’s phrasing, “total victory.” The pairing of these two mutually exclusive phrases can only mean one thing: In common usage from the White House and its friendly media, “pushing for a ceasefire” means “continuing to bomb and besiege Gaza while reiterating terms of surrender.”

One linguistic trick that permitted this contradiction to go unchallenged is the sleight-of-hand in what the White House means by “ceasefire.” In some contexts, it means the term as it has been used by the Israelis, namely by Netanyahu: a temporary pause in fighting to facilitate hostage exchanges, followed by a continuation of the military campaign whose goal, ostensibly, is to “eliminate Hamas.” But this is explicitly not an effort to “end the war” as Netanyahu made clear repeatedly throughout the conflict.

The White House’s demand to “end the war,” increasingly popular since the summer of 2024, is just a reiteration of surrender terms. The State Department banned its staff from even using the word “ceasefire” for the first few months of the conflict. But in late February 2024, on the eve of a Michigan primary that was embarrassing then-candidate Biden, the White House, as we noted in The Nation at the time, pivoted to embracing the term. But the Biden administration changed its definition to mean (1) hostage negotiations, but with a firm commitment to continue the “war” once Israeli hostages were freed, and (2) a reiteration of surrender demands, sometimes using both definitions simultaneously.

The concepts of “ceasefire” and “push to the end the war” became, like the “peace process,” a ill-defined, open-ended process for process’s sake that US officials could point to in order to frame themselves not as participants in an brutal, largely one-sided siege and bombing campaign but a third party desperately trying—but perpetually failing—to achieve “peace.”

How the US Media Helped the Biden Administration Distance Itself From the Horrors of Gaza | White House–curated stories of performative outrage and feigned helplessness provided cover for an administration arming death on an industrial scale.

Several attendees at the November meeting — officials who help lead the State Department’s efforts to promote racial equity, religious freedom and other high-minded principles of democracy — said the United States’ international credibility had been severely damaged by Biden’s unstinting support of Israel. If there was ever a time to hold Israel accountable, one ambassador at the meeting told Tom Sullivan, the State Department’s counselor and a senior policy adviser to Blinken, it was now.

But the decision had already been made. Sullivan said the deadline would likely pass without action and Biden would continue sending shipments of bombs uninterrupted, according to two people who were in the meeting.

Those in the room deflated. “Don’t our law, policy and morals demand it?” an attendee told me later, reflecting on the decision to once again capitulate. “What is the rationale of this approach? There is no explanation they can articulate.”

Soon after, when the 30-day deadline was up, Blinken made it official and said that Israelis had begun implementing most of the steps he had laid out in his letter — all thanks to the pressure the U.S. had applied.

That choice was immediately called into question. On Nov. 14, a U.N. committee said that Israel’s methods in Gaza, including its use of starvation as a weapon, was “consistent with genocide.” Amnesty International went further and concluded a genocide was underway. The International Criminal Court also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister for the war crime of deliberately starving civilians, among other allegations. (The U.S. and Israeli governments have rejected the genocide determination as well as the warrants.)

A Year of Empty Threats and a “Smokescreen” Policy: How the State Department Let Israel Get Away With Horrors in Gaza

Absolutely wild the apologia for Democrats doing genocide you guys will do to avoid holding Democratic politicians and campaigners to account for their own decisions on policy and how they campaign.

Funny how the policy of unconditional support of Israel which both parties have held since the end of WW2 suddenly becomes an issue when it could hurt a democratic candidate. It’s a manufactured outrage and suckers fell for it. Palestinians have been under a slow genocide for years and none of you even knew or cared.

Oh my God, shut the fuck up you disgusting cretin. The absurd lengths you'll go to do apologia for genocide and to avoid blaming people in power who actually set policy and campaign priorities. The absurd reach you have to do to demand other people shouldn't care about something.

You're a racist piece of shit who only cares about any of the groups you mentioned as a cudgel to insist other people can't or shouldn't care, at the same time as you present yourself as some realist pragmatist who is the only real defender of these people. It's absurd and a horrific mentality that you inexplicably refuse to hold people in power accountable for their own policies, and insist the only option is to arbitrarily and randomly carve out those who you deem acceptable targets, only to then blame them anyway if/when you lose an election from bleeding support.

You could care less about immigrants being put into concentration camps by the US, trans kids being tortured, or women being forced to carry their rapists baby. You are so blinded by the single issue the propaganda you inhale has told you to care about, you don’t think about the suffering your ignorant choices cause.

In your attempt to say I shouldn't care about Palestinians, you already have given away the game. Who's to say you won't scold people in 4 years for caring about trans people when Democrats help pass anti-trans legislation and potentially lose another election bleeding their base of support? Democrats have already been signing onto shitting on immigrants, so surely next election it's already decided that it's gonna be "Oh so you let their immigration policy stop you voting for them!!???" If/when they lose again.

Yes an actual leftist not a useful idiot for conservatives. Take it in.

lmao yet you are a useful idiot for defending a party that committed itself to genocide by wasting your time online voter shaming.

It’s not relevant, explain simply why any of what you posted means letting Trump get in was the better choice.

The part where it was Democratic campaigners and politicians who decided risking letting Trump in was the better choice than breaking from endorsing and materially aiding genocide, despite a year of repeated warnings at every level, from the State Department to the voter base campaigning for a change in policy?

Brother I am not reading

lmfao I can tell. Although this bit was redundant from the beginning considering your responses doing the "partisan Democrat spends their time trying to vote shame people online rather than do anything productive like maybe supporting the uncommitted movement 8 months ago to force a change in policy on Democrats doing genocide".

and I’m not a liberal. Anarchist

lmfao anarchist but fixated on pathetically vote shaming people online months after the election and referring to any criticism of Democrats as "tankie disinfo outlets".

Sound about right.

Brother I am not reading that it is not relevant to my point,

It's literally directly relevant.

Tankie disinfo outlets like respected investigative journalism outlet ProPublica?

Several attendees at the November meeting — officials who help lead the State Department’s efforts to promote racial equity, religious freedom and other high-minded principles of democracy — said the United States’ international credibility had been severely damaged by Biden’s unstinting support of Israel. If there was ever a time to hold Israel accountable, one ambassador at the meeting told Tom Sullivan, the State Department’s counselor and a senior policy adviser to Blinken, it was now.

But the decision had already been made. Sullivan said the deadline would likely pass without action and Biden would continue sending shipments of bombs uninterrupted, according to two people who were in the meeting.

Those in the room deflated. “Don’t our law, policy and morals demand it?” an attendee told me later, reflecting on the decision to once again capitulate. “What is the rationale of this approach? There is no explanation they can articulate.”

Soon after, when the 30-day deadline was up, Blinken made it official and said that Israelis had begun implementing most of the steps he had laid out in his letter — all thanks to the pressure the U.S. had applied.

That choice was immediately called into question. On Nov. 14, a U.N. committee said that Israel’s methods in Gaza, including its use of starvation as a weapon, was “consistent with genocide.” Amnesty International went further and concluded a genocide was underway. The International Criminal Court also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister for the war crime of deliberately starving civilians, among other allegations. (The U.S. and Israeli governments have rejected the genocide determination as well as the warrants.)

https://www.propublica.org/article/biden-blinken-state-department-israel-gaza-human-rights-horrors

Tankie disinfo outlets like NPR?

https://www.npr.org/2024/08/24/nx-s1-5086924/the-dnc-didnt-let-a-palestinian-american-speak-the-uncommitted-movement-took-note

Tankie disinfo outlets like The Nation?

The White House routinely makes mutually exclusive statements about its desire to “end the war,” while saying Hamas could “have no role in postwar Gaza.” Yet no mainstream reporter, editor, or opinion writer bothers to reconcile this contradiction. This calculated vagueness is central to why Israel is permitted to continue bombing and killing at will for an indefinite amount of time. How can US officials simultaneously push for an “immediate, lasting ceasefire” while, at the same time, saying the other warring party must be completely defeated before they can support a lasting ceasefire?

This isn’t a call for a ceasefire—it’s a call for, in Netanyahu’s phrasing, “total victory.” The pairing of these two mutually exclusive phrases can only mean one thing: In common usage from the White House and its friendly media, “pushing for a ceasefire” means “continuing to bomb and besiege Gaza while reiterating terms of surrender.”

One linguistic trick that permitted this contradiction to go unchallenged is the sleight-of-hand in what the White House means by “ceasefire.” In some contexts, it means the term as it has been used by the Israelis, namely by Netanyahu: a temporary pause in fighting to facilitate hostage exchanges, followed by a continuation of the military campaign whose goal, ostensibly, is to “eliminate Hamas.” But this is explicitly not an effort to “end the war” as Netanyahu made clear repeatedly throughout the conflict.

The White House’s demand to “end the war,” increasingly popular since the summer of 2024, is just a reiteration of surrender terms. The State Department banned its staff from even using the word “ceasefire” for the first few months of the conflict. But in late February 2024, on the eve of a Michigan primary that was embarrassing then-candidate Biden, the White House, as we noted in The Nation at the time, pivoted to embracing the term. But the Biden administration changed its definition to mean (1) hostage negotiations, but with a firm commitment to continue the “war” once Israeli hostages were freed, and (2) a reiteration of surrender demands, sometimes using both definitions simultaneously.

The concepts of “ceasefire” and “push to the end the war” became, like the “peace process,” a ill-defined, open-ended process for process’s sake that US officials could point to in order to frame themselves not as participants in an brutal, largely one-sided siege and bombing campaign but a third party desperately trying—but perpetually failing—to achieve “peace.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/us-media-gaza-bias-reporting-genres/

It's really wild how liberals bury their head in the sand and pretend any criticism of Democrats is by definition illlegitimate by virtue of criticising Democrats. You are literally no different than "fake news" Trump stans, but somehow even more moronic with "tankie disinfo outlets". Grow the fuck up.

Seems like Democrats could have articulated that rather than spend a year telling their own base to fuck off when their base told them committing to genocide wasn't a good idea electorally.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/17/uncommitted-delegates-bring-gaza-war-message-to-democratic-convention

https://www.npr.org/2024/08/24/nx-s1-5086924/the-dnc-didnt-let-a-palestinian-american-speak-the-uncommitted-movement-took-note

Zionist propaganda like Biden claiming there were mass rapes on October 7th? Zionist propaganda like Israel cares about humanitarian concerns and isn't murdering random children and mothers as they try to reach hospitals? Zionist propaganda like the hospitals being Hamas and that's why we needed to bomb them? Zionist propaganda like Bill Clinton talking about Judea and Samaria?

How elections work is that political parties work to earn votes of the base they want to represent.

It's wild how moronic dipshits like you who talk down to others about "hOw ElEctIOnS WoRk" never hold political parties responsible for the choices they made about how they campaign and why, and the policies they follow, and instead blame random nobodies asked to tick a box every 4 fucking years.

Hey, dipshit, who forced Democrats to literally commit themselves to genocide? This isn't a minor quibble over tax policy, like 5 vs 10% tax rate, this lis* literal genocide*, mass murder of an ethnic people directly supported by Biden and the Democrats. They were told for a year by their own base this was not going to win them votes, and they ignored it. Your response is to literally claim we just needed to factor in literal fucking genocide as a given. You are a monstrously disgusting piece of shit. The perfect embodiment of the racist liberal. Brown people do not matter to you for anything except as a performative cudgel to vote shame people over the Democratic parties policy and campaign choices, something no one else made them do. Rather than hold them responsible, your dumb fucking ass is still online doing the same tired bullshit of insisting it's everyone elses fault except the people who have actual fucking power and actual decision making capacity to change shit.

Here's how democracy works dumbass. A political party puts forward a set of policies about issues x, y and z. Voters express their preferences and concerns about them and other issues. A party then has 2 options: change policy and campaigning in response to those concerns, or articulate why their policies would be better.

So you tell me, Mr Elections Understander, what happens when voters express for over a year they don't like a central policy that has dominated the news, but the party tells them to fuck off repeatedly? Is that a good strategy for an election to win votes, to tell people concerned about literal genocide to shut up because "I'm speaking"? Is it a good strategy to tell voters they need to just accept genocide will happen, that they need to factor it in like it's 2% fucking inflation?

But sure, you hitch your wagon to the Democrats didn't have to do anything differently. It's everyone elses fault they committed themselves to genocide. It's everyone elses fault that something that literally every competent campaign manager would have told you, that ignoring and overriding your own base on issues they care about, whilst spending the entire campaign trying to appeal to people who hate you with "but we can be racist and do genocide too!!!!!" could be a losing strategy.