• ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    22 hours ago

    I don’t think 24 was highly winnable for Democrats. It was a coin toss year that they fumbled by pretending Biden was remotely ok to be a candidate.

    • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      It being a coin toss is the result of their fumbling. Long before his decline was obvious, and across many races, Democrats were underperforming.

      It’s definitely due to their planning/messaging. Obama won with huge margins on both presidential campaigns, running on a message people believed in. No one since has come close, either in messaging or results.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Obama won in one of the best years for a Democrat candidate in probably 40 years. Hillary probably could have won then as well.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      22 hours ago

      It was not remotely close, and Michigan is a very bad state for you to pick this fight, because it was at the heart of the “undecided” movement, where we have clear data that exactly what was needed for Democrats to win the election was explicitly left on the table by both Democratic campaigns.

      You need to see 2024 as an unforced error, an intentional loss on the part of Democrats, because there has never been a more clear path to victory than what was given to the Biden and Harris campaigns. At least, when the text books are written, this is what they’ll say. The uncommitted movement was clear about a specific policy which needed to change, and what it would take to get those votes. Its literally unprecedented, as in, this had never happened in a US election before. Books will be written and studies will be made about this phenomena.

      Literally all the campaign needed to do was to listen to its voters.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        41 minutes ago

        These arguments always pretend that Israel didn’t have a TON of popular support in the US at that time.

        Always talks about one side of the coin, that Democrats coming out strongly in support for Palestine would have won over x, y or z cohort, while completely ignoring the significant number of people who would have refused to vote for a pro-Palestine, anti-Israel Democrat at that time.

        You are over/underestimating the size of these groups because you’re in a bubble. The reason the Democrats generally don’t pander to leftists, is because there frankly aren’t that many of us (and even less that actually actively vote, even when there’s no leftist candidate). It’s that simple.

        You keep describing what would have won you’re vote, while assuming it’s exactly the same for tens of millions of others. It’s not.

        An intentional loss on the part of the Democrats

        This is so unbelievably fucking stupid. Just stop.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Michigan was the only state where Palestine was a major factor in people not voting Democrat. Trump still won all the other swing states. There were more people that were surprised Biden wasn’t on the ballot than there were people not voting for Harris because of genocide nationally. That’s 100% the fault of Democrats not doing a primary and falling back to the candidate no one actually wanted.