

Two things can be bad.


Two things can be bad.


Are you phrasing this as an indictment of american politics and culture, or as a lesson dems should learn from going forward?


Nor is there any evidence that her laugh caused her defeat.
The point is that the liberal has to choose: did the “moral high ground” leftists cost her the election, and thus have the power to sway elections - or did the leftists NOT have the power to sway the election, and thus liberals should be quite about the “moral high ground” leftists?
Edit: and your point is also dubious. It’s known that Kamala’s refusal to break from Biden’s policies was a huge part of what cost her the election - bad enough that the DNC was recently in the news for hiding the Kamala campaign autopsy.
RootsAction, a progressive advocacy group that conducted its own analysis of Democrats’ 2024 loss, said in a statement that the DNC’s refusal to publicize its findings “undermines the goal of defeating Trumpism.” RootsAction’s autopsy, authored by journalist Christopher D. Cook, found “ample evidence that Harris lost many voters, especially young voters, Arab-Americans, and critical support in Michigan and elsewhere, due to the campaign’s failure to shift or even signal a potential shift in policy on Israel and Palestine.”


Hard agree. Taking a step back and having the revelation that your electoralism means definitive genocide no matter who’s in power should not be a reason to dig in and defend your electoralism. It should be reason to tear everything down.
Otherwise, youre taking the stance that Palestinians have a duty to allow themselves genocided to buy yourself time for more political waffling.


Kamala was offered a choice between funding a genocide and preventing [whatever scary thing is in the headline]. She chose genocide, and she lost.
Leftists cost her the election and you’ll damn right we’ll do it again - unless you answer to our simple demands of ensuring the dem candidate is not an unabashed genocider.
What does this mean? Who is this critiquing?