lost voters who don’t follow politics.
This could imply that they started following politics and then decided not to vote democrat.
No…no it doesn’t imply that at all.
They saw a woman was running for President and decided they didn’t care. It’s as simple as that. Sexism gave the election to Trump
Nah, had Tulsi stayed with Democrats, and ran against Trump I would have voted for Tulsi. Instead, Tulsi joined Trump, and I voted for Trump. If Tulsi runs again, I’ll vote for Tulsi.
Just watch this (again), there’s Joe, Kamala, and Tulsi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4fjA0K2EeE
Your fanclub doesn’t represent a significant demographic, nobody cares what Tulcels think. Plus, it’s not like the democrats can control her, she’s an opprotunist who flips whenever she feels like and stands for nothing.
We can say the same about Stein.
Partially true. I didn’t vote for Stein (I voted PSL), but the Green party is ideologically closer to leftists than the major parties. It’s kind of the same on the other side for the Libertarian party, there are more Republicans and non-voters with Libertarian beliefs than there are people who vote Libertarian. Stein herself does seem like something of an opportunist, but she doesn’t rely on the same kind of niche cult of personality that Tulsi has built for herself. Most people just know of Stein through the Green party, which does represent various legitimate beliefs.
The policies that we on the left advocate for have the potential to reach a wider audience than just people who are already ideologically committed. By running on a platform that would materially benefit people, it’s easier to make the case that people should support the left, regardless of who they are or how they view themselves politically. You’re free to write off people like me, but it’s not as if we’re the only ones who like having healthcare, for instance.
Tulsi is one of countless odious personalities that carve out one specific sliver of the population and speak to them exclusively, and fixate on tiny bits of information that support a narrative that’s completely out of line with the broader truth. “If you’re anti-war, you should vote Republican. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, calling for ever more exorbitant military spending, saber-rattling with everyone, conducting assassinations and bombing campaigns. And pay no attention to the fact that I myself was on Fox News attacking Obama from the right for not being aggressive enough in the War on Terror, and literally described myself as a hawk regarding it.”
She is part of a pipeline that takes people with valid, left-leaning criticisms of the Democratic party and convinces them to accept the Republicans as an alternative, despite them being worse in every respect. She’s absolute scum, and she discredits people like me, who actually are anti-war, not just when it means criticizing the Democrats. I will always call out her and her ridiculous little fanclub, who have clearly never read an actual goddamn book in their lives. And the same goes for people like Jimmy Dore and Jackson Hinkle too.
Sorry for the confusion. I was referencing this comment:
Your fanclub doesn’t represent a significant demographic
Most every group that’s not Republican or Democrat is in that boat. Not enough people to even get recognized. Very seldom do we see others even get a seat at the table.
There’s no confusion, I addressed that. The Greens and Libertarians both represent broader, legitimate ideological currents, held by people who mostly either fall in line behind the lesser evil or don’t vote because they see it as futile. Tulsi’s just a grifter.
Sounds like they are trying to shift blame, again. We knew exactly who she was and knew she can’t be trusted with our support.
Shifting blame by… checks notes… analyzing the demographics of voters.
How are they analyzing the demographics of non voters at exit polls when non voters wouldn’t be exiting the polls to be questioned?
Which non voters are you talking about? The article is about politically engaged voters and voters who don’t follow politics, both of which are voters.
yes. thats there point… the voters are not why harris lost.
Honestly I thought it was really stupid to hear Trump going after “low propensity voters” as if Kamala wasn’t.
To me, politically engaged people by nature will vote so why the fuck wouldn’t you be trying to reach those that don’t pay much attention? Like ffs if these people can’t be their own advocates how could we expect them to run the damn country… Very very stupid. :(
The problem is that ots much easier to get people enraged than it is to get them to show understanding. The reds only talk about hate, and that’s very hard to combat. It’s been their strategy my entire adult life, and I’m 51. It’s culture war propaganda.
What we need are Podcaster and other influences to rail against billionaires and their crimes.
So? get them enraged at the ass fucking corporate america is giving them? problem solved.
