as far as economic measures go, it is. Inflation is still fucking people over, but the popular sentiment sort of lags the economy. But just because inflation is brutal on goods, doesn’t mean that inflation is high, or that the economy is “struggling” it’s just that people don’t feel good about rising tides.

80% of people live paycheck to paycheck. Don’t bullshit me.

they talk, but don’t act

The main messaging from the Harris campaign seemed to consist of:

• the economy is fine
• immigrants are fentanyl carrying criminals and we need to build the border wall
• fracking good
• war good (continued expansion of Israel, keep arming Ukraine instead of pushing for a diplomatic resolution, and let’s invade Iran next with the most lethal fighting force in the world)
• what, do you want a DANG CHEETO in the white house?

They don’t walk the walk of a pro worker party, but they sure as shit don’t talk the talk either.

Crumbling empire

Unless you’re a senator or a MOC, I don’t think her “do something” is directed at you.

They do. However, I’m sure you can imagine an elected government acting in a way that the majority disagrees with. We’re about to see it in the US (actually, we have for years if not decades). This is not just a US phenomenon, there’s actual research showing that in liberal democracies, there’s very little correlation between what the general public wants, and the policies instated by their elected officials. There is a strong correlation with the interests of the owning class though.

Here’s a study for American politics: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

There’s a Danish study as well. I’m having terrible trouble finding it though. It’s an important addition because the democrats not representing the interests of the working class could in theory be a consequence of the US’s two party system. The same result holding in multi-party Denmark shows that this is not the case.

At any rate, the point is that just because these countries are liberal democracies doesn’t mean their population wants a US military presence.

Not to be a china apologist, but overt military presence in the form of missiles and boots on the ground is very different from clandestine operations abroad. Basically all major powers have the latter. What do you think the CIA is?

This is reason.com, famously a libertarian propaganda mill. Safe to completely ignore.

I really fear for the family lives of folks living in liberal strongholds like Georgia.

You understand we’re talking about messaging here, and that most of the electorate does not read the policy pages. I guess you don’t actually otherwise I wouldn’t have to write this. The electorate sees the ads, the debates, and if they’re really engaged, maybe the interview. Compare those with Obamna’s interviews and so on. His were inundated with references to health care and the like. Hers with quaint stories about how she was a small business when she was growing up or some shit, and maybe uncritical support for apartheid.

Two things:

• that’s literally what you did, assert some claim about her campaign without providing any evidence
• you’re asking me to prove a negative

If you have any leg to stand on, it shouldn’t be hard to come up with a concrete example of what you mean.

No she hasn’t.

Name them.

It’s incredibly infuriating. And the worst part is you already see democrat mainstream media types setting their crosshairs on trans people. In 2028, the democratic party will run on the 2024 republican platform, just like they ran on the 2020 republican platform today, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it, because of these idiotic shitlibs.

There’s nothing to abandon the alt right for. If the democrats decided to run on a platform that was even remotely progressive, do literally anything for worker’s rights, they’d win a lot of disenfranchised voters. Obama won, and that’s not because all of a sudden, just for a moment, America wasn’t racist. No, it was because he promised to solve one of the problems that’s killing Americans in every stratum: healthcare. Instead, we get fracker and border wall builder Harris.

They did vote in a way that makes sense. The Harris campaign offered nothing in the way of economic relief, while committing genocide. That’s an insanely bad proposition. Stop blaming voters and look at your dogshit candidates.

This is maddening. It will never stop. The democrats refuse to campaign on progressive policies, which are incredibly popular among the entire electorate (yes, also among republicans, see the recent ballot measures in Missouri on paid sick leave and higher minimum wage, for example), instead opting to position themselves as “republican light”. They completely capitulate to republican messaging on pretty much every issue (border wall, fracking, pro war, etc), and predictably lose to the people who invented this messaging. And then comes the worst part: angry libs start blaming the electorate instead of the people who lost. It’s not the lack of the dems even mentioning universal health care, no it’s the trans people. It’s not the genocide that the current democratic regime is committing, no it’s probably actually latino voters. It’s not the fact that the Harris campaign asks us to pretend everything is hunky spunky with the economy, offering nothing to relieve the 80% of the population who live paycheck to paycheck. Noooo you know what it’s actually white women and muslims faults. You fucking morons.

Can’t wait for the 2026 anti-transgender dem ticket, and the anti gay marriage ticket in 2028. It’s gonna be great.

If candidate 1 is garbage, and candidate 2 loses to candidate 1, what does that say about candidate 2?

What was solid about her? She lost to Trump of all people.

Yeah I agree, it’s the voters who are wrong. Can’t wait to see how this strategy pans out next cycle!

They’re agreeing with you.