The year is 2027, Kamala Haris has just won the Democrat presidential primary race and has announced her strategy of reaching out to Never Trump Republicans and has chosen Liz Cheney as her VP
how to connect with voters who share their values but not all their liberal ideas
… what? If the voter in question is at odds with your ideas, that’s not someone who shares your “values.”
spoken with the billionaire Chris Larsen to discuss artificial intelligence
Cool, they’re progressing from overpaying useless media consultants in lieu of real organizing to overpaying useless AI consultants in lieu of real organizing.
their values = unlimited genocide on gaza, yemen, iran, china, russia, ...
their liberal ideas = lgbtq+ outreach to popularize the unlimited genocide on gaza, yemen, iran, china, russia, ...
their liberal ideas = lgb
tq+outreach to popularize the unlimited genocide on gaza, yemen, iran, china, russia, ..
… what? If the voter in question is at odds with your ideas, that’s not someone who shares your “values.”
it's repackaged "love me, i'm a liberal". it means they feel sorta bad about systemic oppression of marginalized groups of people and so they "value" things like equality. and that's easy to measure in surveys, you see. just ask potential voters how much they "value" certain vaguely defined words. but obviously they don't want to do anything to fundamentally change anything, so those voters tend to disagree with their "ideas" about precisely how to do nothing.
For those who need it: Love me, I'm a liberal
she wants to connect with voters who share the value that all humans are worthy of dignity and respect, but not the liberal idea that trans people are humans
All humans are worthy of dignity and respect, if you exclude all the humans
Democrats: We've moved too far away from the working class voter
Also Democrats: Let's consult with tech billionaires, democratic pollsters, and NYT columnists
So they learned absolutely nothing? Killer.
They'll win the votes of the elusive 99% hitler electorate any day now. I suppose they don't mind trying since it is their preferred policy and if Trump second term is bad enough they might win the election with ability to pass reactionary conservative austerity legislature. Basically learning from Labor in UK.
Shes gonna lose harder than last time if they're dumb enough to run her again.
Please just have an actual democratic primary this time so you can lose again with less than 1% of the vote, in disgrace, and not drag all of us down with you again.
They sure used an awful lot of words to say
Abundance Agenda
sounds exactly like the kind of thing Kamala would feel the need to water down into "actually we're only fixing housing in one elite neighborhood in California".
Liberals have learned nothing over the last 3 decades
"Republican, but less of an asshole" only gets you so far, even in a two party system where you are one of the two
zero chance that this article mentions "genocide" or "Palestine" despite the polling showing it as the dominant a significant factor in her loss
EDIT: gonna dial down this claim until I can find some of the post-election posts
Really? I've always heard that those votes lost wouldn't have been enough to change any state
I mean she sure did lose dearborn with it. Also a lot of students got brutalized by the police due to pro-Palestinian protests and that didn’t earn her much goodwill.
I'm going off memory of posts, but I thought there were polls showing it as a decisive factor in Michigan (and maybe Arizona?)
all I can find so far is this post about how 29% (the largest chunk) of Biden 2020 voters who didn't vote Harris cited ending the violence in Gaza
She’s not winning the primaries, this site’s found its new boogeywoman
I didn't think Biden would win after all his previous losses in primaries, but he managed to win out. It's definitely possible. I think a "I told you so" message will resonate to the libs in the primaries and then lose in the general, though.
You mean in 2020? The primaries were fake and mostly canceled in 2024.
I want so hard to believe in the "abundance agenda," but it just doesn't work on its own. Ultimately, an economy only has so much productive capacity. Yes, YIMBY movements have their place; we should remove irrational barriers to new housing construction like wasteful single family zoning. But the real problem is one of income and wealth inequality. There are only so many workers, so much investment capital, so many productive resources in an economy. It costs money and materials to build homes. If all the wealth is piled at the top, those resources will go towards the whims of the wealthy. If wealth is broadly shared, then those resources will go to the needs of the many. Instead of people learning to become carpenters to build homes for regular people, they study to be shipbuilders to build yachts for the ultra rich. Instead of mills churning out wood, concrete, and steel for ten modest family homes, those resources go to build a single large mansion for one wealthy family. With all the wealth piled at the top, the rich can outbid everyone else for any of the resources needed to build homes. You cannot solve the housing crisis without tackling wealth and income inequality first.
Someone wrote a critique that points out that the abundance agenda purposefully ignores all questions around who controls and allocates the abundance
There's nothing substantive enough to even bother critique-ing. It's entirely magical thinking. A juvenile tech-bro though experiment of bro, what if liberal scifi utopian pod-people society was real? As if society is created the way you create an shitty mobile app, but with 100% cargo culting.