This makes her “strategy” even more baffling than before. How do you know you are down the entire time and do absolutely nothing about policy?
They got the victory they wanted, muting and eliminating any progressive elements in their wing of the corporate party. Winning the presidency was secondary to crushing dissent from the left.
I'm currently researching to write an article about this exact thing. I heard that they were literally getting consulting from current UK Labor Party people. I think it was intentional that they sent Bill Clinton and Richie Torres to Michigan. I think they wanted to lose the Muslim vote and pick up imaginary embarrassed suburban women that the data wouldn't show, even if it really existed. Sort of a leap of faith.
I think they were trying to do a Starmerite purge. The nonprofit-killing bill and the antizionism=antisemitism bills were supposed to be the final nail in the coffin
Killing your party to own the leftists
Hey if you had the chance to spend $1.5 billion in a few months wouldn't you take it
Brewsters millions but worse
A rare film where the remake was better
I think that's a modern issue really. Plenty of good/better/equal remakes around. Scarface for example.
Just none from current time
For sure.
It seems like what's missing in modern remakes is a willingness to try something new and in the present context. But I have a hunch it's less so film makers wanting to and more so studios wanting a guarantee on return.
Good art tends not to work that way. It's always going to involve risk.
I would have spent 1.5 billions just paying people's debts and saying "brought to you by the Kamala Harris campaign".
Yo, somebody get this Marxist a strategy position somewhere. That's a fucking amazing idea
The Democratic institution would never stand for giving collected funds to anyone but rich people.
It would make a good strategy for the PSL though. Now that they've gotten 0.1% of the vote, instead of running a conventional campaign, they could do 20% what they've already been doing, and 80% "this debt has been forgiven of you by the PSL, vote for us" and build a reputation as the people who go around forgiving debt (instead of the people who show up at all the peaceful protests with those yellow-and-black signs).
Tbh that seems very illegal. Not that laws apply to ruling class
John Oliver did the biggest debt relief thing ages ago. Just bought loads of abandonded debt for cheap and declared that he wouldn't pursue it. He sucks, but that was pretty cool and funny. Here's the relevant bit
IIRC you can buy lots of kinds of debt for cheap (though not most student debt), and then could just discharge it.
E: Might need to have a registered corporation or something but fuck they have $1.5B they can set that up.
Id spend it on furry commisions
Why do you think there's so many hyena harrises floating around?
I've been reading Nixonland and my biggest takeaway so far is that we have been living in Richard Nixon's America for the last 60 years. You mean to tell me, you don't know how to combat racist demagoguery, opportunists, and right-wing sickos? You mean to tell me that we just get to sit and watch the so-called adults in the room flail in the same way the liberals (who were nominally BETTER, because they believed in funding government programs) flop and scream "not fair not fair".
Not to sound cringe or 
, but Americans deserve better ~~crooks~~ politicians.
Shoulda went with Hillary. 
The only correct assessment 
I guess this is the answer to how her campaign spent 1.5 billion in 15 weeks.
that's what it was meant to do: acquire a shitload of dough and funnel it through the apparatus for a nice generous skimming off the top by "consultants", and then back into the pockets of corporate allies that make their favorite treats and own the fancy hotel chains and sell the air time of giant media companies.
the contest is incidental to the campaign as a mechanism for accumulating, funneling and reconcentrating wealth.
This is why I don't think elections are ever in any danger. There's a whole industry around the spectacle, and the outcome doesn't matter anyway.
For elections to be in danger we'd need to have them in the first place and the US has never held a legitimate election
How do you know you are down the entire time and do absolutely nothing about policy?
Because her superiors on Wall Street don't care what party wins, just that policies never change.
Li: At the moment, the Chinese the party state has proven an extraordinary ability to change. I mean, I make the joke: “in America you can change the political party, but you can’t change the policies. In China you cannot change the party, but you can change policies.” So, in the past 66 years, China has been run by one single party. Yet the political changes that have taken place in China in these past 66 years have been wider, and broader, and greater than probably any other major country in modern memory.
Pilger: So in that time China ceased to be communist. Is that what you’re saying?
Li: Well, China is a market economy, and it’s a vibrant market economy. But it is not a capitalist country. Here’s why: there’s no way a group of billionaires could control the Politburo as billionaires control American policy-making. So in China you have a vibrant market economy, but capital does not rise above political authority. Capital does not have enshrined rights. In America, capital — the interests of capital and capital itself — has risen above the American nation. The political authority cannot check the power of capital. That’s why America is a capitalist country, and China is not.
Years ago, one of my personal moments of radicalization was realizing just how many entities donate to both parties
Yeah. People would defend it by saying they were "hedging their bets" or "being pragmatic." Which sounds like a solid take. But then I kinda had this epiphany that took the form of a question. "Maybe it's because they know the outcome doesn't matter and they're just funding the theater of the election, rather than trying to get a particular outcome?"
She could've swung for the fences on progressive policies, if she knew she was doomed right? Not like anyone would ever be honest about it, but they ran their perfect centrist anti Trumper campaign and lost which has gotta take the shine off that a little. She could've ran on a Bernie style platform, lost and then they could claim "well see it never works let's never do that again"
They crashed and burned so hard that even the king of libs dunked on the concept of winning centrist votes
they dare not suggest that a better world is possible. they just got done shutting that shit down in 2020
They can't risk anyone getting the idea that they support progressive causes.
I feel like her political background just isn't a "swing for the fences" one, though. The only thing that would've made her lose worse than she did would've been if she was faking it. People might not be smart about policy and whatnot, but Americans can spot a fake 100 miles away.
Trump was never anything but his most authentic self from the moment he rode down that escalator until today.
Harris trying to go fulll Bernie/ Squad would've failed spectacularly. Because that not what she believes in.
I feel like Trump has said a lot of things that he didn't hold himself to, which is kinda fake behaviour. I think I understand what you mean though, even though I struggle to articulate it
it's not a lie if you believe it
Trumps authentic self is a liar.
The above comment isn't about lying, but about authenticity.
Americans can't necessarily spot a liar a hundred miles away, but they absolutely can spot insincerity a hundred miles away.
I don't think I could handle the distinction in my day to day life
but Americans can spot a fake 100 miles away.
Ehh, Trump himself is 100% a fake. But he's gamed the system to exist as a fluke inside it.
i don't agree that he's a fake. He's a liar, a fraudster, a con man, a grifter, a showman, but always his authentic self as those things.
He doesn't half-ass it like the Democrats do, that's for sure.
That makes the decision not to address her supporters on election night even funnier. I could muster up a sliver of understanding if her polls had her ahead and she repeated Hillary's mistake of thinking she could cake walk into the White House, but to act surprised when your own research had you down the whole damn time? What, was she too busy collecting on all the prediction market bets she made against herself?
She made it so obvious that she straight up hates her supporters yet Liberals keep glazing her even now.
It's an incredible testament to America's culture of celebrity that both major candidates were horrible sucking voids of charisma who clearly despised their own supporters.
it was her turn, for god's sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How do you know you are down the entire time and do absolutely nothing about policy?
Because she didn't want to win. The dems don't want to make change they want to make money, and Trump and a right wing government will help them make the most money. They can pretend to huff and puff all they want but ultimately their stock portfolios will reap the rewards of this and that's all they cared about from the beginning.
Devils Advocate: Do people actually vote based on policy or is it more "vibes" and identity?
The best weeks for Kamala's campaign were when her running mate called Republicans weird. And then they dropped it a week later instead of doubling down on the only thing that moved the polls. Almost like they didn't want to win 🤔
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
Military-election complex