Is that actually preferred?

I dunno, maybe we should have an election to see. Oh, wait, we did. I guess you have your answer. So what should the Democrats do about that?

the brave pro genocide democrat lol, you people deserve a century of humiliation

Oh my friend, you read like an undercover right-wing plant. It's fairly obvious to anyone with a conscience that genocide is the simplest and most important issue that a candidate could fuck up. And Harris did that.

Let's compare issues. I would say that on various issues (immigration, defense spending, health care) her stances were certainly not left-wing. Center, center-right, pro-corporate, that's what I would say. And these are important issues. But I think it's also true that she could have maintained many of those stances and still win. After all, previous Democrat presidents did.

If you're afraid to say that genocide is wrong, and don't actively work to stop it, you deserve to lose.

I can get disgusted by genocide all by myself.

Is the right wing push in the room with us now?

A mayor can't really do most of these, but also I mean yeah he's a demsoc; it's up to the leftists on the streets to force him to do good things.

Epitome of letting perfect be the enemy of good

This right here is why I'm not convinced any politician would ever pass a leftist purity test.

More like "willful corporate minion"

It's not even centrist. Democrats are center-right and Republicans are far-right, so the "centrists" in the US are three-quarters right.

The Overton window in the US has shifted significantly in my lifetime. As someone else pointed out, unions were pretty standard in the '70s and have nearly been eliminated now.

You mean the primary voters who chose Bernie over Hillary, but were undercut by secret DNC insiders? I remember that quite well.

people who don’t realise they’re fascist tools.

People who absolutely do realize that they're fascist tools and love every second of it.

A percentage of Democrat voters didn't even know Biden dropped out so had no idea who Harris was. I think asking that kind of person to be engaged with politics more readily leading a horse to water.

Its not all democrats... brought to you by the same group who produced hits like "its not all white people" and "its not all cops"!

No, it's really politics.

Did you forget what happened in the 80s to air traffic controllers? And what has happened repeatedly since then?

It's 100% politics, as looking at any other country with unions CLEARLY demonstrates.

Who told you this tripe? Don't listen to them. See for yourself

Source?

Dumb fucks are people who have no other arguments than "vote blue no matter who" and "we told you so" or "you're a russian troll if you don't support our version of genocide"

See, how braindead that sounds?

You fuckwits would vote for Trump if he ran from DNC, because you tell yourself you're so good at spotting "propaganda", but eat up all the propaganda from your side.

You dimwits wouldn't see you're repeating propaganda by the DNC, if they hit you with a truck.

Fediverse isn't the reddit echo chamber you circlejerk on one side anymore.

I actually wasn’t considering Harris on this really at all but of course she’s the go to example usually, even though she’s now forever unelectable. I guess in my head she lost for many other reasons altogether greater in sum than Gaza.

But really I was referring to the much greater problem we’re facing right this moment not in the past. Would-be Dem politicians are right now facing battles with AIPAC supremacy.

I’ll just use Mamdani since we’re just getting things off the ground here. That took record breaking grassroots activism and was still use one upset in a long history of utter domination. AIPAC’s batting average is still ferocious.

Any blue candidate is liable to face them in some way. With Mamdani it simply wasn’t relevant to the job he was applying for and he stuck to that, bless him, and NYers believed him. Mazel. But dammit if they didn’t try to make his stance on Israel THE deciding factor of the election.

You could say Mamdani was a coward for not taking on the genocide in Gaza more fully. It’s true. But my question was specifically “is that really what we need from candidates this year?”

Because right now are tons of candidates right now being similarly put in these weird gotcha tribunals interviews and debates about allegiance to a foreign nation, albeit an ally, when IR and diplomacy is 100% irrelevant to the job they’re even running for. Is it really every candidate’s job to take a stance?

No. I'm saying that democrats already have the position that a wide majority of their constituents hold (as shown by the primary victories of corporate democrats time and again on a national level). The lemmy echo chamber doesn't represent "wide majorities" whatsoever. Hillary and Kamala both lost by less than 5%.

Iif a few more idealists would have held their nose and voted blue despite the terrible candidates you would have problems right now of the type "the solar energy incentives are going to big corporations instead of homeowners" or "Kamala-Care offers too many loopholes and doesn't provide a single payer system" instead of the current "the pedophile criminal is executing citizens in broad daylight while transferring 10 billion dollars to his slush fund and threatening war with Venezuela, Iran and Denmark".

But at least you didn't vote for an impure candidate, so you have that going for you... I'll be enjoying my universal Healthcare, 14 months of paid maternity leave and 30 days of PTO over here. Peace!

So the other pizza was a pie of shit, not a bowl? I don't see that as a major problem with the analogy...

Anyhoo, enjoy the 3 years of shit ahead..., maybe even 7 (Trump 2028!)

I think the post is glorifying it.