3 ms·
> If anything, this is a broad rebuke of liberalism without endorsement of the prevailing alternative. I think it was the opposite. If it were a "broad" rebuke
by krapp 2y ago
> If anything, this is a broad rebuke of liberalism without endorsement of the prevailing alternative.
I think it was the opposite. If it were a "broad" rebuke of liberalism, Trump would have gotten far more votes than he did.
It was if anything a rebuke by Democrats of Harris positioning to the right in order to cater to Conservative swing voters, and not being liberal enough. All she had to do was come out strongly against Israel's genocide in Gaza, but she literally said she agreed entirely with policy, and wanted to include Trump staffers in her cabinet.
Except, of course, no one in the Trump camp was ever going to vote for her, so that effort was futile. All she accomplished was alienating her own base.
- bokoharambe 2y agoTrump is not the only/real alternative to liberalism even if he was the option that was given. That's why abstention won: no one wants the liberals, but no one sees Trump as different enough from them for him to earn their support.
- onetokeoverthe 2y agoMaybe abstention won in a landslide and a record number did not vote. IE; +51%. We'll never know.
- raxxorraxor 2y agoI don't think the "genocide" story is very convincing. On the contrary, it would have signaled that the Democrats lost further ground to rather extremist elements. Also, the conflict came later and the polarization was already present. I think the problem is that this "base" is really seen as the base for Democrats and why quite a few people would never vote for what they stand for.