The Mastodon For Harris campaign has raised close to $500,000 within two weeks of being live. It is probably the largest attempt for political organizing on the Fediverse, and may provide a playbook for other efforts going forward.

    • delirious_owl@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The US is committing a genocide. Most people won’t bother going to the polls for a candidate that supports the genocide.

      Of the people that support the genocide, most of them are Trump supporters. This is basically what happened to get Trump elected the first term. Sanders wasn’t running, so people didn’t go out to vote.

      • Match!!@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        she’s been pretty critical of netanyahu and it’s easy to imagine her taking a harder stance against bibi if there’s still no ceasefire by the time she takes office

        • delirious_owl@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Has she said the word genocide? Has she made any statements recognizing the ICC and ICJs investigations of war crimes? Has she called for the arrest of Bibi as a war criminal?

          She met with the guy ffs

      • Plopp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        While I agree that someone like Sanders would be a better candidate, it would require him (as an example) to have the full support of the Democratic party. And he certainly does not have that, as seen previously when he was running as a Democrat and the Democrats fought him harder than they’ve ever fought a Republican.

        Harris is the only realistic non-republican candidate on the table, and so far she’s doing way better than Biden did and would have done. Biden certainly would have lost this election, Harris has a decent chance of winning. A Democrat Sanders would have lost due to constant sabotage by the Democrats and the Democratic aligned media outlets. An independent Sanders would also have lost, and split the vote for a Republican win.

        At least that’s my 2 cents.

        • delirious_owl@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yes, my point is that it seems that the Democratic party is trying to loose and put Trump in office again. That or they’re just completely unaware of history and too dumb to realize the consequences of their choices.

          • Plopp@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            Wdym? Harris looks like she might win over Trump. And yes, the Democrats would prefer Trump over someone like Sanders who wants to change the country in a fundamental way to benefit the people instead of corporations and the rich - the two groups that both parties work for.

            • delirious_owl@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Most people in the US aren’t Democrats or Republicans. Most people in the US don’t vote because those parties don’t meet their needs.

              I’m saying that even more people who might have voted Democrat won’t vote for Harris and won’t vote for Trump. They just won’t vote at all.

              If we had an actual progressive that stood firmly opposed to the genocide, they would easily beat Trump. Harris will probably loose for nearly the same reason that Hilary lost to Trump.

              • Plopp@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                Most people in the US don’t vote because those parties don’t meet their needs.

                Even if that’s true that doesn’t mean they all agree and would vote for the same candidate. In fact that seems very unlikely given how distributions usually look. And in a first past the post system people usually vote for the party that has the biggest chance of beating the party they dislike the most, not for the party they like the most, and over time that usually leaves the system with only two viable parties that a lot of people don’t like. But it doesn’t mean they all agree.