Hmm, maybe, it is always hard to prove an effect like that. Best one could do is exit polling with specific questions of what influenced the decision, and other polls in general. I was interested what polling was available there, most I found was just non-voters as a larger group, which seems to be predominately non-politically engaged and mostly centrist. One article I have found seems to indicate the non-voting Democrats don't really fit the narrative of being swayed by radical left influencers and agitprop either.

I am also unsure how visible those kind of influencers were on mainstream social media, as I am not active there at all. I always had the feeling they were mostly visible in their own bubbles and by people who got angry at them, thus also getting them served by the algorithms. Their effect on motivating people to stay home, I'd be genuinely interested in seeing in polling numbers, but I sadly could not find any polls with questions like "who influenced your decision to not vote".

In general, psychology-wise, I think motivating people to stay home that would have voted otherwise is I believe a much lower effect, than the failure in motivating people to get up and vote, who would have stayed home otherwise. Which was not the responsibility of those commie influencers the way I estimate it. However - I admit there may have been an effect: By inducing fatigue in activists that had to argue with them, taking away time and resources for trying to reach and motivate properly undecided non-voters.

Ah, thank you, my search-fu did not provide me good numbers like that.

However, unless I am misreading them heavily, those numbers don't seem to lay out what you mention. They are exclusively about "Biden 2020 Voters Who Cast A Ballot For Someone Besides Harris". Again - I don't think that group is large enough, because even combined, all the left-of-Democrats third party votes seem to be negligible. That is "29% of voters nationally who voted for Biden in 2020 and cast a ballot for someone besides Kamala Harris in 2024". So, again, if I combine Jill Stein, Cornell West, and Claudia De la Cruz, that is 0.72% of the popular vote. Even with a naive calculation of taking all 29% of those that would then be commies like that, that seems like not enough to put Trump into office, unless highly concentrated in very embattled swing states.

EDIT: OK, I forgot, that means also people voting Trump, not just third party. So the influence could theoretically be more. But I doubt commie agitprop pushed a lot of people to outright voting Trump.

who banned it 🤔

If that's an uphill battle then this useless bickering is a pitch black spelunking

If it doesn't happen now, many self-proclaimed 'leftists' aren't interested.

Apparently the 60+ years of groundwork leading up the Russian Revolution just aren't interesting enough for them.

we need to be honest with ourselves.

Being angry at republicans for blowing up the government is reasonable.

It's also reasonable to be angry at the democrats, who sat around watching them work towards blowing up the government for fifty years and being like "hurrdurr FAIRNESS!" while doing nothing to stop it.

I remember having arguments with these Blue MAGA muppets during the election. I kept trying to explain to them why it was insanity to pretend the economy was fine. But they were morons with a 1984 streak that would make Orwell blush, and thought they could just manifest their way to an election victory. They kept citing CPI data, saying, "but inflation adjusted wages have never been higher!" When you pointed out that inflation purposefully leaves out a lot of the volatility in prices people were reeling from, and how not all income groups experience inflation equally? They didn't want to hear it.

Remember the absolutely insulting, just disgustingly condescending term "vibession?" I do. That term alone probably cost Kamala the election. The only thing that makes people angrier than having to deal with a rotten economy is to have their leaders gaslight them and pretend nothing is wrong.

These morons didn't want to hear it. They have a three monkeys belief system. Just ignore all problems, pretend everything is fine, and just try to bluff your way to victory on election day. You point out the suicidally stupid policies that were killing the Kamala campaign, and they just acted like three year olds saying, "harumf, I guess you want Trump to win!"

This is exactly what people are referring to when they describe liberal arrogance. Criticism is unacceptable. Shut up and tow the line. Vote Blue No Matter Who (unless there's a progressive on the ticket.)

You know I've had a DNC member admit to me that they intentionally kill primary campaigns, right?

Lose rigged primaries

You call this "talking to"?

At least a communist can goddamn read

I wouldn't say that looking at all these tankies and illiterates in Russia and China.

Except the situation they're describing is a multi-generational one and they're trying to do what's for the greater good over time, which is ironically what the more short-sighted "blue no matter who" people accuse them of not doing. Sometimes things need to be permitted to get worse before they can get better. You can't just follow a simple greedy algorithm of taking the best possible move at every point with respect to the next state of the game. This algorithm is very easily gamed to lead to bad situations.