• Hegar@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Given how incredibly well the harris campaign was doing at first and the outpouring of bi-partisan support for shooting CEOs dead in the street immediately after the election, and the barnstorming success of mamdani, i think it’s safe the say harris lost because they took pelosi’s advice and tacked hard to the right, instead of solidifying their early victories by continuing to lean left.

    I think it’s pretty clear the country was willing to vote for harris, dems just fucked it up.

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Agreed, it was theirs to lose, as it often is. It’s a known fact that if more people vote it tends to swing left, so I’m not sure why they always seem to try and cater to the right side voters who are going to be much harder to convince. I mean I know part of it is most of the Democratic party is actually centralist, but still… go after the easier win that might actually help your case? And maybe move that way politically to ensure power?

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Long story short: They’re beholden to their donors, not their constituents. They’re not centrists because they believe in that stuff (I suspect they do, but that’s incidental), but because their donors want them to be centrists. I mean, if they ran on a leftwing program they’d need to do something leftwing to appease their constituents, and that would require them to tax the rich.