And that's why Kamala's stance on Palestine never bothered me.

[ubergeek@lemmy.today]

Because most people weren’t arguing about Gaza and it wouldn’t have changed the outcome.

Well, I know it wasn't the sole cause for her loss.

With the benefit of hindsight, the only way she could have won would have been to address the high cost of living.

No hindsight needed! EVERYONE was telling her campaign this, and they ignored it, in favor of "data driven strategy", where they A/B tested the hell out of everything for a theoretical "typical voter".

“The economy” was the highest ranked issue and people voted for the guy who lied about eggs.

Yes, because Harris wasn't believing anything to be an issue, while homelessness is spiking, costs of living are spiking, costs for housing are spiking... Harris demanded people believe her, over their own growling stomachs.

So, yes, her loss was multipartite, and had little to do with voters who couldn't be arsed to vote for someone who has no connection to reality, and loves engaging in genocide.

[averageworldist@endlesstalk.org]

Gaza was fucked under either presidential option and we all knew that

The USA is a genocidal regime and everybody who participated in their election, giving their democratic legitimacy to this kind of state is sharing guilt for the same crime.

At least if nobody had voted, we could threat them for what they are - a dictatorship, and isolate them on the international scene. But nooo, you people were too afraid of having to actually fight back against fascism.