435
Kamala Harris won politicaly engaged voters, but lost voters who don't follow politics.
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
435 points (94.1% liked)
politics
19366 readers
2588 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We also knew exactly who Trump is. We have a very long history.
I particularly love stuff about him before he was in politics, like the Motley Fool podcast on how he duped public investors for his private company through pumping up real estate values. They went to his office, saw this weird array of gaudy decoration and oddly attractive employees, sat down with him, and saw through his lie. Then made the only short in their firm's entire history... and it paid off.
There's no excuse of bias. You can't blame any politicians. It's just him. And while not perfect by any means, you have to squint hard to see Kamala in the same light.
Right.
But one thing we should also know is that running a bad candidate who is better than the only other option isn't enough to decisively beat even the worst possible Republican.
Voters should have all voted for Kamala even though they didn't want her to be president due to her policies. That would have mitigated the damage.
They didn't do it in 2016 either, and Biden only squeaked thru because Trump was actively in office and Bernie stayed till the end to pull Biden left. If either of those didn't happen, the strategy would be 0 out of 3.
It's clearly not an effective strategy compared to running a candidate who already agrees with Dem voters
So rather than stomp our feet and being mad at the people we need in 2028, maybe spend the next four years bringing them back into the fold and running a candidate that people actually want to win the election?
Like, we've tried stomping our feet for 8 years now since Hillary, do you think any of that has helped?
Because to me, it looks like all it accomplishes is increasing donations from people who want Dems to lose, and turning dlteliable Dem voters into non-votets.
Stop worrying about if you're right.
Start worrying about what can win 2028, and if that will actually translate to fixing shit
Why is the default argument from liberals always 'but Trump?' Harris would have been a shit candidate not worthy of being elected regardless of who her opponent was.
Because she wouldn't have been shit. Your argument is invalid.
That doesn't matter. She was the only other option we had
She was forced as the only choice on voters and liberals find that acceptable
It doesn't matter. She was the choice we had.
Why was she the only other option? Is there something wrong with how we count our votes that artificially restricts the number of viable political parties?
Yes, our electoral system guarantees only 2 parties are viable. Whether that's good or not is irrelevant, because it's the system that was in place for this election.
Harris was going to raise taxes on billionaires and corporations. Why the fuck would you NOT vote for that?
And if she said that she was going to give everybody rainbows and lollipops you would believe that you were going to get a rainbow and lollipop.
False analogy. Clinton, Obama, and Biden -- all 3 of the last Dem presidents -- kept their promises to raise taxes on the wealthy and/or corporations.
Realty matters.
And gave them more loopholes to avoid those increases.