Anonymous #1 1w

Who tf in a swing state is going to vote for a democratic establishment candidate. Seriously. What base are we supposedly absolutely required to pander to here? Because I can’t find them.

10

Anonymous #2 1w

When?

11

Anonymous #2 1w

This account is like brand new.

14

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

PA elected Shapiro and MI elected Whitmer

-3

Anonymous #1 1w

Did PA vote for the establishment dem pick in the 2024 election?

10

Well people hate me for being pretty so

11

I imagine I’ve recovered if I can’t remember what you’re talking about lmao. Maybe I just blocked out the traumatic memories of a chud owning me with facts and logic? Who’s to say.

11

Anonymous #1 1w

What about 2016?

8

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

When was the last time PA had a progressive senator?

-1

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

Watch out. The rightoid you’re talking too is a triggered child rapist.

15

Anonymous #3 1w

Tracks

13

Anonymous #1 1w

You answered my question with a question, so it’s fair to assume pa does not have a very good track record of voting for establishment dem candidates? And yeah man. Not a lot of progressive local candidates. We did have fetterman, who ran as a progressive but is more establishment than basically anyone else. It’s pretty clear the want is there for a progressive candidate, it’s not our fault the options are garbage or liars.

8

Anonymous #1 1w

Or progressive governor, for that matter

-2

Anonymous #1 1w

I guess just refer to my last comment?

13

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

Voting for establishment dem candidate federally* I should say.

8

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

Casey was considered somewhat progressive from an economic standpoint but people didn’t like his stance on Israel. Sestak was progressive and lost to Pat Toomey

-2

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

PA’s track record of voting for establishment Dem candidates is decent. The record of voting for progressives is nonexistent (besides Fetterman — lmao)

-2

Anonymous #1 1w

It seems like your definition of progressive is fairly loose.

6

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

You can cherry-pick years that republicans won but that doesn’t really help your case unless you can prove a progressive would’ve done better

-1

Anonymous #1 1w

Okay. So the question is this. If you need establishment dems to run federally to win in places like pa, Why do you keep losing?

4

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

I’m doing it by Pennsylvania standards. He was somewhat progressive compared to Arlen Specter, the establishment candidate he beat

-2

Anonymous #1 1w

So what you mean to say is that Pennsylvania has effectively had no real progressive competition until recently. And fetterman, posing as a progressive, used that to win. An establishment type used the guise of progressivism to win, and you think an actual progressive won’t?

5

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

Because not every state is progressive. You can’t just say “oh it worked in Maine so it has to work on a national level”. Look at who VA and NJ elected

-2

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

Fetterman only won because abortion was on the ballot. If anyone found out about his views on Israel he’d be cooked. He wasn’t progressive, and he denied it when people called him one. He’s a grifter and people should’ve seen that

-2

Anonymous #1 1w

Look at the polling. It was about abortion and not sending Dr. fucking Oz to the senate. If Republicans had a competent candidate they may have won

-2

Anonymous #1 1w

He denied it after his election, sure. But I live in PA. And I voted for fetterman. He sent us messages describing himself as a progressive candidate. So, yk. A bit of history rewriting there on your part.

4

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

It’s on video. https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/fetterman-progressive-no-i-m-just-a-democrat-139738693638

-2

Anonymous #1 1w

Well regardless, that doesn’t change the fact that in actual messages to the PA voter base he self described as a progressive, like, constantly. Pretending he didn’t use the guise of progressivism is total bs, frankly.

5

Anonymous #1 1w

Fetterman won in 2022? What does showing me a bunch of shit of his saying “I’m not progressive” AFTER being elected prove? Yeah. I know. He was lying.

11

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

*He* didn’t use it as much as PACs that targeted progressives did. They did a very good job of making it look like he was progressive. But chasing a black man with a gun because he suspects him of a crime isn’t very progressive, is it?

-2

Anonymous #1 1w

It took a lot of work, but we’re at the point now where you have effectively said “yes fetterman painted himself as a progressive”. Whether he did or the pacs did it, it doesn’t really matter? The point is the VOTERS believed he was progressive, and he used that to win. In fact, it was a selling point, as you yourself have now established.

7

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

I see. So the recipe is to act somewhat progressive and then shift hard, so you still maintain an above water approval rating?

-1

Anonymous #1 1w

So if you understand that to win, fetterman had to look like a progressive, why are you asserting that a progressive candidate wouldn’t work on the federal level, because PA is a swing state. Especially since the only time in the last decade an establishment candidate has won is after historically bad Republican presidencies and literal global disasters.

7

Anonymous #1 1w

“Somewhat” Brother calling yourself progressive to voters is not painting yourself as “somewhat progressive”

5

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

It was a selling point to *some* people. I assume you’re familiar with how social media campaigns target certain demographics in certain ways. They acted like Trump would be good for Palestinians too. They sent texts to people in Dearborn saying so

-1

Anonymous #1 1w

Are you trying to convince me and anyone reading this that Republican voters were significantly responsible for fettermans victory? Because that’s just wrong. 90 percent of PA Republicans voted for Oz.

6

Anonymous #1 1w

Republicans were responsible for 40 percent of the votes, and 90 percent of them voted for oz. It’s clear why fetterman won. and it wasn’t pandering to both sides. It was pandering to the left.

4

Anonymous #1 1w

This is why democratic establishment officials will not release data on the 2024 election. It will show this exact same effect. Kamala lost because her voter base, the democrats, widely have no interest in voting for an establishment pick anymore. They want a progressive candidate.

5

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

That’s not what I said at all. Let me start over: this was a perfect race. His opponent was out of touch and incompetent. Fetterman looked like his constituents, so he got the people who vote based on vibes. Abortion was basically on the ballot (as a PA resident, I’m sure you know that), so there was high Dem turnout. He looked progressive when he needed to, his PACs helped him do that, but he also looked like the establishment when he needed the Zionist Dem vote

0

Anonymous #1 1w

I’m unconvinced of this massive and necessary block of Zionist voters. What, 80 percent of national democrats have a negative view of Israel? Is that 20 percent concentrated only in swing states or something?

5

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

The number of pro-Israel Jews in swing states is non-negligible. That number decides elections https://apnews.com/article/jewish-voters-pennsylvania-2024-elections-trump-harris-09297d8c0843ae2b1698c9d2dfb80fd9

0

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

It doesn’t even need to be 20%. Just tens of thousands in the right place

0

Anonymous #1 1w

Then why do your candidates keep losing federally??

3

Anonymous #1 1w

That’s like, the question right? If there’s this massive swath of Zionist voters keeping progressives from the White House, why is it that your candidates constantly lose? They’re Zionist.

2

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

If you read the article I linked, you’d see that there are voters that literally think Harris didn’t support Israel. That’s the trap. You can’t both-sides like she tried to do, because then both sides think you sided with the other

0

Anonymous #1 1w

There are voters who thought that? You’re saying enough Zionist aligned voters thought that she was anti Israel, for seemingly zero reason, and *thats* why she lost? That’s absurd.

6

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

They lose federally because of myriad factors that vary from election to election. Terrible messaging, poor turnout, etc. it’s more helpful to look at trends, not as much at individual elections. For PA, you need the white working class. You can’t rail against fracking and mining. And in some people’s eyes, that makes you not progressive. But almost every candidate that has won PA has had to walk on a tightrope when it comes to fracking. Same with immigration and crime

0

Anonymous #1 1w

Maybe you’re right, maybe it’s just a string of bad luck on the dems part, I guess? Seems a little silly though.

4

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

I’m not saying that’s the entire reason. I’m saying they *exist* and that number is enough to partially sway a swing state, along with other factors. I apologize if I’ve spoken in absolutes, I didn’t mean to and I shouldn’t have. There’s no single reason she lost. There were tons of factors

0

Anonymous #1 1w

You don’t have to apologize dawg it just seems like theres an obvious answer to me and you don’t agree. But regardless, the proof enough for me is the fact democrats won’t release the full data from the autopsy of the election. If all of what you’re saying is true, that data would prove it. Yet they hold it back.

5

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

I’ve heard people say it was leaked but I never looked into it. I think the other polls that were done should provide enough info though

0

Anonymous #1 1w

It was leaked by word of mouth. Many people who believe what you believe just say that the person who leaked it did so because she’s progressive, and was simply lying. Truth is they will likely never give us actual data from any official source.

4

Anonymous #1 1w

If the information followed your explanation, then why would they hide it to begin with?

3

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

lol speaking of the autopsy

0

Anonymous #1 1w

Kinda supports my point tho right?

5

Anonymous #1 1w

Unless you think “Gaza playing a big role” means a lot of Zionists were like, anti Harris because they thought she was anti Israel. Which seems insane.

6

Anonymous onigiri. 1w

Probably because it’ll make them look stupid. IMO they diminished usually reliable progressive Dem turnout by not taking a stronger stance against Netanyahu. Then they lost independents by not talking about the economy and just not communicating policies well in general. Overall, the communication was poor and no match for the Republican media apparatus. The vibes weren’t there for the people who vote based on vibes

0

Anonymous #1 1w

Then there was the anti-incumbent effect we’ve seen around the world. It’ll just be one big “I told you so” from all corners of the party and it’s probably not very unifying. But if there was ever a time to release it, it was right after they did it. Releasing it now is a bit messy imo

0

Anonymous #1 1w

You mean an I told you so from the left.

5