3 ms·
> From a game theoretical perspective this is a good result. It is a clear reiteration of the message to the Democrats: you won't win by claiming to be 0.1% les
by lelanthran 2y ago
> From a game theoretical perspective this is a good result. It is a clear reiteration of the message to the Democrats: you won't win by claiming to be 0.1% less bad.
Yeah, I said as much on a reddit comment prior to knowing the results: This is a good thing for the future of the Dems! They can now take this valuable feedback and put together a better platform to run on in future races.
Running on social activism isn't a winning strategy, no matter how loud that vocal minority is shouting.
- a_victorp 2y agoThis has happened before... I don't expect Dems to ever really learn this lesson
- notnaut 2y agoWhy would they? The party in its current form exists as a reactionary pressure release valve for after the actual party of action deconstructs the roadblocks that keeps the money controlling both parties from self-replicating.
- vundercind 2y agoDid Harris run on social activism? I didn’t get that from the campaign’s messaging. Not Biden’s, either.
- e40 2y agoIt’s clearly the perception. Before Harris entered the race.
- dgfitz 2y agoI believe social activism has been associated with the Democratic Party recently, I suppose it is implied when you run under their umbrella.
- vundercind 2y agoIt’s rather tricky to fight this perception when it doesn’t primarily come from either one’s messaging or one’s actions.
- lelanthran 2y agoNot tricky at all: any politician can distance themselves from some fringe group of vocal nutjobs. Even Trump has done so on occasion, like with the project 2025 conspiracy theory.
- vundercind 2y agoIndeed, just denying it while having a ton of actual close ties to it worked in that case. Or, his voters didn’t care in the first place so the blow was never really gonna land (I suspect this is more like it)
- creato 2y agoIt doesn't need to specifically be Harris or Biden's policies to drag them down. There's very obviously a backlash against some progressive ideology going on, and the democratic party is clearly at least partly beholden to adherents of that ideology. That's why Harris can't give obvious and clear answers to (some) simple policy questions.
- vundercind 2y agoYes, but the claim was they ran on that. Fixing the problem (if it is a problem) is a lot easier, and the necessary approach to fix it very different, if you ran on something and it backfired, compared with not running on it and still losing votes over it. [edit] I also truly wondered if that’d been a significant part of their message, and I missed it—in the age of granular ad-targeting, who knows?
- yoz-y 2y agoWhat kind of political landscape will democrats come back to in 2028? Doesn’t project 2025 aim to dismantle a lot of the current establishment?
- lelanthran 2y ago> Doesn’t project 2025 aim to dismantle a lot of the current establishment? Didn't the Reps distance themselves from that? Vocally and repeatedly? You may think that that playbook is their playbook, but apparently their distancing themselves from it worked well enough.
- oaththrowaway 2y agoProject 2025 is basically QAnon for the Democrats
- gmueckl 2y agoTrump and Vance will almost certainly pull strings to erode the current political system in Washington with no regard for the spirit and likely even the letter of the constitution.
- ars 2y agoProject 2025 is not an actual policy of anyone with power. I saw so many ads by Harris complaining about it, and that's part of how I knew she would lose: when you fight against something that isn't real, you're going to lose.