What do you mean? I’m brainstorming for the next election!

Hey, it’s never too early to start alienating voters for 2028!

Hmm, I like the energy here, but it might be a little aggressive, even for the Democrats. Remember, the tone you want to hit with Muslim voter outreach is, “Condescending paternalism as you explain what’s best for them,” not, “death wishes mixed with xenophobic dog whistles about their welfare babies.”

Woah, infantilizing the population of a majority Muslim town for having their, “feefees,” hurt, even though they’re the ones most likely to personally know someone who is a victim of the violence in Gaza? That’s the boldest outreach strategy yet!

That’s a good point! Don’t ask if people voted for Harris. Assume they didn’t! It’s important to attack anyone who might even just empathize with these voters, otherwise that empathy might lead then to question the DNC’s decisions!

Ooh, I like this one! Using cynicism to mask a, “lesser of two evils,” argument, while still ignoring how emotionally devastating it would be to vote for someone who is materially supporting the slaughter of your people? This one could be the 2028 platform!

Focusing only on the outcomes of the actions, while not examining the circumstances that led to the actions? Yes! That will make sure this never happens again!

Yes, that’s good! Let’s pretend it’s not our problem that they didn’t vote for the Democrats, even though we clearly cared about the outcome of the election! And if we blame them for the alienation they feel, we never have to examine what the party could have done differently! It’s brilliant!

Yeah, boil it down to trite moral lesson! That’s perfect!

Lots of great voter outreach in the comments here! Keep telling them they deserve to see the genocide of their people! If you alienate them enough, they’ll definitely vote for you next time!

Edit: I wanted to thank everyone for all the great ideas for Muslim outreach in future elections! I can tell by the downvotes that not all of you liked what I had to say, but if I learned one thing from the Harris campaign, it’s that you can’t care what a community thinks of you, no matter how many votes it costs you!

Those are the three branches of the U.S. government, but in this context, they mean the three institutions required to pass legislation; a bill must go through both the House and the Senate and then be signed by the President to become a law. If Democrats had taken one of those institutions, they could have slowed the Republicans’ agenda…

Yup. Call your Senators and tell them you have no faith in the party leadership, and that Chuck Shcumer cannot continue as Senate Minority Leader. If they’re up for reelection in the next two years, tell them you’re happy to support a primary challenger if it’s the only way to get change.

Weird that whenever you give this spcheil, you always leave out the part where Hillary’s campaign secretly took over the party in 2015 while she was a candidate in the DNC’s supposedly fair and unbiased primary:

When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party…When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign—and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.

…OK, I’m fairly sure I understood…most of that. Thanks for the alternative perspective. I’ve generally only heard the negatives from people who’ve had their pensions replaced by 401Ks, so I guess it’s good to know what people see as the positives.

I will give Biden credit for trying. I expect him to pull an Obama and pivot to centrist policy the second he got into office, but he really tried to pass all the progressive things he ran it. He was just incredibly ineffective at it and basically wound up with a pretty standard (though very large) infrastructure bill that he wanted everyone to pretend was a huge progressive victory.

Huh, I didn’t think about how the 401K is transferable, but it makes sense that it’s a plus; it’s how everyone wishes health insurance worked. But does it matter if you move companies if your next employer offers a similar pension? Wouldn’t that mean you just had two smaller monthly payments vs. one larger one? And weren’t pensions protected from bankruptcy by Employee Retirement Income Security Act? I thought it was because of that Act that companies justified phasing out their pensions for 401Ks.

Sorry for all the questions. Pensions are sort of an artifact of a lost time for folks my age, but most folks that I know that are my parents’ age seem to prefer the stability of their pensions to 401Ks.

A) 3 random, disconnected positions are not a lurch to the left, they’re just…3 random policies.

B) She abandoned her Medicare for All position before the end of her 2020 run for something less progressive.

C) None of these happened after 2020, how is any of it evidence that they went too far left in 2024?

Anyway, I’m gonna stop replying now. It’s a waste of my time, and I’m starting to feel like I’m punching down.

You think they went left? Are you drunk? Are you doing a bit? Did you forget the /s? If you legitimately think she went left, you’re probably the only person on the planet that thinks so:

New York Times: Harris to Court Moderates With a Onetime Right-Wing Provocateur

Wall Street Journal: Kamala Harris, with Liz Cheney, Courts Moderates in Pennsylvania

Politico: Harris is courting moderate Republicans.

The AP: Trump targets hardcore partisans, Harris goes after moderates

What, in God’s name, makes you think this campaign was more left-leaning than 2020?

Oh my god, you’re right! I should have said, “They’re not gaining with moderates and, in fact, are losing moderate support in many crucial elections, especially when they weaken their message to try to be more appealing to them!” What an idiot I am for using concise language that anyone with half a brain would understand.

Anyway, since I’m also a pedantic twat, I looked it up, and it turns out a lot of leftists did show up in 2020! Looks like your assertion that, “The left doesn’t show up to vote,” is false as well. Looks like you got some proofreading to do! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yeah, no shit, that’s literally in my comment! Maybe try rereading it and getting back to me.