A few had already started jumping ship a couple of months or so ago. But not because they want to tell the world that they’re sorry, but because they had already thought they saw the writing on the wall, and figured getting out early might help them in the future.
Many will deny ever supporting Netanhayu or Zionism.
Saying that, it still feels a little like counting chickens before they’re hatched.
This:
Vice President JD Vance, assessing why his Republicans fared poorly, listed four ways to bring voters back, including ending the Iran war and changing “our relationship with Israel”.
If that was to work on any level, then there is no hope for the U.S. at all.
Because there are only two options. Think of aggregate voter sentiment as being “If things are good/ok, vote incumbent. If things are bad, vote for change/the other guys”. It doesn’t matter who the ‘other guys’ are, just that they’re recognised as ‘the only alternative’.
Eg. Canada’s third largest province just elected a totally unknown conservative leader – like the ‘real’ leader stepped down a day before the election was called, and a temp got put in place… who then ‘won’ the election. That cycle wasn’t about “voting for the random temp” / supporting conservative values, it was a repudiation of the previous government. People just didn’t feel like there was any other viable alternative.
So if the dems don’t markedly improve the living conditions in the USA somehow during their term, and get people thinking “Yeah, things are good!”, they’ll be kicked out again, and replaced by whatever monstrosity the R’s have dredged out of the Trump Ocean.
That’s because D presidencies (and Congresses) have failed to meaningfully deliver for decades, so people pick the other guy by instinct. When the Dems delivered they had national politics by the balls for thirty years.
It depends on your definition of meaningful delivery. W started a hugely expensive war that Obama had to manage. He pushed trough healthcare reforms (that I am not qualified to judge) and in general kept things stable. Biden had Covid to manage and made substantial investments in green technology, again keeping things stable and bringing the Afghanistan war to it’s inevitably bad conclusion. Ds typically also are able to balance the budget, whereas Rs always overspend and give tax breaks to the rich.
Ds have also been the party of civil rights and minorities, but they always face relentless and shameless propaganda from Rs, aimed only at riling up the voters in anger. So I would argue it’s more a matter of how things are perceived rather than how they actually play out.
The problem with the perception of Ds is that R voters see them as a strange caricature, and independents and D voters don’t give them enough credit for what they achieve (and for just not being R in a two-party system).
I accidentally deleted my long-ish reply so I’m gonna be brief here, but basically you’re assuming you know how people are doing better than they do. Democrats have scored some wins, but given the timescale and the sheer magnitude of crisis facing ordinary Americans most of it is too little, too late (the Affordable Care Act, originally Romneycare, being a good case in point). Virtually every stat tracking how people actually live (as opposed to how much money they have) has been declining over the past two to four decades and people are feeling it in their wallets, and Democrats have near-universally failed to address that. There’s a reason progressives have gained so much momentum over the past decade. Compare to someone like FDR and you’ll see why modern Democrats are perceived as useless.
basically you’re assuming you know how people are doing better than they do.
Can you point out where I am assuming this? I understand things are bad, and in case you haven’t noticed they have gotten significantly worse under R presidency once again.
There’s a reason progressives have gained so much momentum over the past decade.
Also, in case you haven’t noticed, the progressives come from within democrats. This is great development and I hope it continues, but it needs people to participate and think of Ds as their party that they take control over. Otherwise there will be just corporate democrats who struggle to win against R. But even they are better than Rs, by a wide margin.
Compare to someone like FDR and you’ll see why modern Democrats are perceived as useless.
Interestingly, FDR got the presidency after the great depression had started. That sentiment and economic hardship allowed him to carry radical changes.
Russia is losing 2000-2500 men/day invading Ukraine.
1-2 months of those casualties seems to be non-excessive in an operation to destroy a military that given the chance comes to murder and rape unrestricted (as proven on October 7th).
To quote wikipedia
A May 2025 investigation found that a classified IDF database listed 8,900 Palestinian fighters as dead or likely dead, or 17% of the 53,000 death toll at the time
Which seems sensible since hamas likes using human shields.
Should Isreal have the goal to exterminate all Palestinians, the numbers would be much much worse.
Time to tell the world how really sorry they are for razing Gaza.
“We were just following orders.”
Oopsiepoopsie!
A few had already started jumping ship a couple of months or so ago. But not because they want to tell the world that they’re sorry, but because they had already thought they saw the writing on the wall, and figured getting out early might help them in the future. Many will deny ever supporting Netanhayu or Zionism.
Saying that, it still feels a little like counting chickens before they’re hatched.
This:
If that was to work on any level, then there is no hope for the U.S. at all.
I really really hope people don’t forget the shitpile this administration has been and don’t vote R again in their lifetime.
My fear is that the neocon wing of the party grabs the power back and pretends they’re all different in the 2030s.
R presidencies are always such incredible clusterfucks, and yet they get voted back every few election cycle.
Because there are only two options. Think of aggregate voter sentiment as being “If things are good/ok, vote incumbent. If things are bad, vote for change/the other guys”. It doesn’t matter who the ‘other guys’ are, just that they’re recognised as ‘the only alternative’.
Eg. Canada’s third largest province just elected a totally unknown conservative leader – like the ‘real’ leader stepped down a day before the election was called, and a temp got put in place… who then ‘won’ the election. That cycle wasn’t about “voting for the random temp” / supporting conservative values, it was a repudiation of the previous government. People just didn’t feel like there was any other viable alternative.
So if the dems don’t markedly improve the living conditions in the USA somehow during their term, and get people thinking “Yeah, things are good!”, they’ll be kicked out again, and replaced by whatever monstrosity the R’s have dredged out of the Trump Ocean.
That’s because D presidencies (and Congresses) have failed to meaningfully deliver for decades, so people pick the other guy by instinct. When the Dems delivered they had national politics by the balls for thirty years.
It depends on your definition of meaningful delivery. W started a hugely expensive war that Obama had to manage. He pushed trough healthcare reforms (that I am not qualified to judge) and in general kept things stable. Biden had Covid to manage and made substantial investments in green technology, again keeping things stable and bringing the Afghanistan war to it’s inevitably bad conclusion. Ds typically also are able to balance the budget, whereas Rs always overspend and give tax breaks to the rich.
Ds have also been the party of civil rights and minorities, but they always face relentless and shameless propaganda from Rs, aimed only at riling up the voters in anger. So I would argue it’s more a matter of how things are perceived rather than how they actually play out.
The problem with the perception of Ds is that R voters see them as a strange caricature, and independents and D voters don’t give them enough credit for what they achieve (and for just not being R in a two-party system).
I accidentally deleted my long-ish reply so I’m gonna be brief here, but basically you’re assuming you know how people are doing better than they do. Democrats have scored some wins, but given the timescale and the sheer magnitude of crisis facing ordinary Americans most of it is too little, too late (the Affordable Care Act, originally Romneycare, being a good case in point). Virtually every stat tracking how people actually live (as opposed to how much money they have) has been declining over the past two to four decades and people are feeling it in their wallets, and Democrats have near-universally failed to address that. There’s a reason progressives have gained so much momentum over the past decade. Compare to someone like FDR and you’ll see why modern Democrats are perceived as useless.
Can you point out where I am assuming this? I understand things are bad, and in case you haven’t noticed they have gotten significantly worse under R presidency once again.
Also, in case you haven’t noticed, the progressives come from within democrats. This is great development and I hope it continues, but it needs people to participate and think of Ds as their party that they take control over. Otherwise there will be just corporate democrats who struggle to win against R. But even they are better than Rs, by a wide margin.
Interestingly, FDR got the presidency after the great depression had started. That sentiment and economic hardship allowed him to carry radical changes.
Be prepared. Media outlets will memory hole the whole thing.
I would spit on them when they do, but I can’t get the pH of my spit down to 0.25
Or time to start the real genocide, since they have less to lose, and people cried wolf anyway.
Also, they will have less budget for fancy interceptors from hamas rockets.
Ah yes people cried wolf, it’s not that two thirds of Gaza was razed to the ground, nothing of the sort.
70k dead, nothing to see here.
Out of 2 million. And how many of those were soldiers/fighters?
Are you … like … trying to justify the 70k as a small or in any way reasonable number?
Russia is losing 2000-2500 men/day invading Ukraine.
1-2 months of those casualties seems to be non-excessive in an operation to destroy a military that given the chance comes to murder and rape unrestricted (as proven on October 7th).
To quote wikipedia
Which seems sensible since hamas likes using human shields.
Should Isreal have the goal to exterminate all Palestinians, the numbers would be much much worse.