this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
186 points (87.5% liked)

politics

19096 readers
4860 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Gender bias played a significant role in Kamala Harris’s defeat, with many voters—often women—expressing doubts about whether “America is ready for a female president.”

Some said they “couldn’t see her in the chair,” or questioned if a woman could lead, with one even remarking, “you don’t see women building skyscrapers.” Though some voters were open to persuasion, this often became a red line.

Oliver Hall, a Harris campaign volunteer, found that economic concerns, particularly inflation, also drove voters to Donald Trump, despite low unemployment and wage growth touted by Democrats.

Harris was viewed in conflicting ways, seen as both too tough and too lenient on crime, as well as ineffective yet overly tied to Biden’s administration.

Ultimately, Hall believes that Trump’s unique appeal and influence overshadowed Harris’s campaign efforts.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zak@lemmy.world 115 points 6 days ago (31 children)

Persuadable voters seemed really focused on prices. It's hard not to be condescending here. Eggs are expensive because of bird flu. Rent is high because not enough housing is being built, mostly limited by local issues. Gas is high because of Putin's war. Anyone who thinks electing Trump will bring those prices down because they were lower last time he was president is fucking clueless.

I'm interested to see how much of a factor unenthusiastic Democrats were. Trump got about the same number of votes he did in 2020, but Harris got far fewer than Biden. It looks like a bunch of people who voted last time didn't vote this time. For them, the concerns the author dismisses might have been more important.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 67 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I’ve talked to a lot of people, and I never once heard anyone complain about her gender. In fact, I was rather surprised that I didn’t hear anything about that. It was 100% complaints about the economy, and no matter how I tried my best to explain how not only are the price of things not Biden’s fault, but we would have been much worse without Biden, it was like talking to a brick wall.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 40 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I believe that there were a fair number of people who just couldn't check the box for any woman, but we're too afraid to admit it publically (or even to themselves). While their complaints about the economy were legit, they might have also been a convenient excuse to hide the misogyny.

And didn't Obama confront this head-on? He told Black men "Look, you may not be inclined to back the woman here, but backing that man in particular would be a disaster". And he was dismissed by many as lecturing too much.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (30 replies)
[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 60 points 6 days ago (11 children)

That's a generous way of saying "Most Americans are overly sexist and/or racist and are willing to make up any reason to not vote for a woman of color despite any evidence to the contrary"

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 44 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (14 children)

I just want to say this to all the people who are making up the most hare-brained excuses for why Harris lost.

Kamala Harris cobbled together a campaign in days that took a campaign that was going R+5 and counting and turned it into a toss-up. She had 107 days. From day one, she was held to an infinitely higher standard than Trump. Trump held a debate where he famously said "They're eating the dogs!" and "I have concepts of a plan!.", and Americans were just fine with it. But Harris wasn't perfectly articulate with details over some economic plan or another and apparently this makes her unfit for President. She put up a near-flawless campaign, especially given how stuck behind the 8-ball she was. It ultimately just didn't matter.

Arab-Americans were outraged over Harris' support for Israel because of the genocide in Gaza. So to protest this, they voted for a man who has vowed even more support for israel and to genocide even harder, and also try to kick them out of the country in the process.

Latino men opted to vote for a man who made it a focal point of his campaign to round up and deport Latinos en-masse because the alternative was voting for a former prosecutor who also happens to be a woman.

White people decided that they want someone who's going to fix the economy, so they decided to vote for a guy who campaigned on raising the cost of living by an average of about $400 a month while promising to appoint a budget czar who already said he actively plans on imposing "hardships" on poor people.

Well, it's either that, or tens of millions of people in a country with a long-established history of racism and misogyny refused to vote for a black female president and just used these niche issues as excuses.

I know a lot of people don't want to hear this, and I know what I'm about to say sounds racist as hell. But Obama was a fluke and America in general is just not willing to elect a minority again. That's just all there is to it. The rise of Trump, the rise of far-right groups like the Proud Boys, and the 2024 election are proof of that. Democrat initiatives did relatively fine. The senate went GOP, but that was predicted with the loss of Manchin and Tester. Democrats in the House did fine. Kamala Harris did not.

And for those who believed that embracing centrist policies is what cost us the election, or we weren't left enough, or we should have listened to people like Bernie and AOC: People like Bernie and AOC are wildly popular in their districts and with the far-left coalition of the voting base. But they are wildly unpopular outside of that. And keep in mind......I love both of them and would gladly vote for a future AOC as president. But given the current political makeup of the country, putting someone like Bernie or AOC on the ballot would have made the ass kicking Harris just got seem tame. Sure, they'd have won states like California and Massachusetts by gigantic margins. But they'd do little to nothing to flip red or purple states.

The fact of the matter is that the 2024 results prove that Americans like what the Democrats were selling. They just don't want her to be the one selling it, as evidenced by the fact that only she underperformed so spectacularly. People were so unwilling to vote for a black, female President that over 10 million of them opted to stay home knowing full well that they were essentially voting for Trump.

A majority of this country is white. A majority of this country will not vote for a minority president again in this political climate. And if the Democrats put up another minority candidate in 2028 (assuming we even have elections), they will lose again. That's just all there is to it. It's a tough pill to swallow, but it's the truth. It's not right, but it's the truth. You know how black people across the south have been fighting gerrymandering so they can have majority-black districts and vote for black candidates? Or for that matter, how minority candidates do better in minority districts when championing minority initiatives? White people are doing the same thing. And there's a lot more of them. And they just proved that they absolutely will vote against their best interests vs. voting for a black woman.

One thing to note about Bernie and AOC is that they're not popular, but their policies are. During 2016, polls showed that even the majority of Republican voters supported Bernie's policies - but only if you told them what the policy was before you told them that it was Bernie's.

The Red Scare is still ongoing today, and having been labeled socialists and communists has made them untouchables and pariahs. And there has never been any Red Scare equivalent for the KKK or white supremacists, or for corporatism or anything, but there has been for socialism, unions, and anything else that puts power into the hands of the people.

[–] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 15 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

I want to comment that you nailed so many valid points.

I know a lot of people don't want to hear this, and I know what I'm about to say sounds racist as hell. But Obama was a fluke and America in general is just not willing to elect a minority again.

This one, I don't think I agree that it was a fluke.

Democrats are continuing to let the loudest crybabies take over the room. And then compromise. Conservatives are right on one thing: the message that Kamala put out to their people was, "You don't want to vote for a fascist." Which doesn't resonate with them. What they instead saw was a person who was going to keep things the same.

Can a minority run again? Absolutely.

But only stop catering to the status quo and bowing down to companies. Do Bernie Sanders shit.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 21 points 5 days ago (1 children)

"Wages may well be rising at all levels, but everyday inflation was more discernible to voters."

Your wages only rise if you change jobs. If you aren't willing, or able to change jobs, your wage increase (if you get one AT ALL) is not beating inflation.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

Maybe in a world where unions don't exist (so give it a year or two)... But no, that's absurd.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago

Union representation is a fraction of what it used to be... or needs to be.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/01/24/labor-union-membership-by-year/72329342007/

"the rate of union members is the lowest in decades at 10%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

A combination of labor laws unfavorable to unions and an uptick in corporate-backed union suppression tactics are two insights as to why union membership is so low in the 21st century.

In the 1950s, 1 in 3 workers were represented by a union. Now it’s closer to 1 in 10."

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 27 points 6 days ago (2 children)

"I can only think of one occasion when someone mentioned stricter taxes on billionaires or any similar policies. The atrocities being committed by Israel in Gaza only came up six times in more than 1,000 calls. The idea that Harris was not leftwing enough seems false"

The problem with this anecdotal evidence is that the campaign almost certainly put this kid to work only calling likely Republican voters... An absolute waste of time, and of course these are the things those shit brains would be saying... If he had been put to work calling people who had voted for Biden but were less likely to show up this time he would have gotten a lot more genocide, she's not progressive enough, and tax the rich messages

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 12 points 5 days ago

Exactly. On the fuckin head.

Just goes to show how deeply-run this “focus on courting the fascists” was in the campaign.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

On ok... So that's anecdotal evidence, but not your terminally online ass seeing everyone on Lemmy upset with it and assuming that was any indication of real world demographics?

Got it.

[–] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 6 points 5 days ago

Nah, we'll have to wait for someone to poll the people who showed up last time but sat it out this time to know for real why they did it

There real problem is that at least 20% of the US population are evil sociopaths.

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 17 points 6 days ago

Author gave many reasons I saw on social media, especially the top ones she mentioned like economy concerns or that she is a communist which are the opposite of reality.

She concentrated on what people are saying instead of why.

We are living in a world where huge part of population abandoned traditional news such as TV, newspapers and is getting their vote about the world via social media through memes and influencers.

The biggest problem with it is that this unlike traditional media is open to foreign interference. We had report of American bloggers being paid by Kremlin ridiculous amount of money, we have evidence of bots being used to persuade public opinion, astroturfing groups on Facebook and other social media that were traced to Russia.

And we still did nothing to stop it.

Half of America lives in a different reality. And it isn't just America but those efforts are happening also in Europe and other Western countries.

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 20 points 6 days ago

She was a lackluster candidate, yet clearly the only reasonable choice. The problem is that the electorate is full of fuckbrains. Any fucking excuse would do - black, woman, price of eggs, whatever. Everything’s about to spiral the fuck outta control (let’s see what egg prices are gonna be like after tariffs n shit). Bitches wanted this in place of having a lackluster, mediocre, caretaker president. Alright. Play ball, bitches.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 20 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Sucks man. I was really hoping to get to the Grand Canyon before they start strip mining it for uranium, but I might be fleeing with my family before we become the rape capital of the globe. India is still king, but judging from the chuds who vote for him, it won't be long before we surpass them. I won't have that for my wife and daughter. They deserve better.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 15 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Oliver Hall, a Harris campaign volunteer, found that economic concerns, particularly inflation, also drove voters to Donald Trump, despite low unemployment and wage growth touted by Democrats.

This. This right here is the issue.

According to the studies done by the Federal Reserve, only 54% of Americans have enough savings to cover 3 months of expenses. That means nearly half the country is basically living paycheck to paycheck.

Dems say wages are on the rise? So is the price of food, with some items still 50% more expensive than they were at the start of the pandemic (and now in even smaller packages to boot). Many Americans are also still stuck working a laughably low federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Why should they care about wage hikes when they haven't gotten a raise since 2009? Meanwhile a large portion of the working class is in food service where the base rate is even lower and they have scrape by on tips — tips that are harder and harder to come by as fewer and fewer Americans are choosing to eat out.

Dems say unemployment is falling? Of course it is, when many Americans have no choice but to work multiple jobs just to make rent. And speaking of rent, it's up a average of 30% which is even higher than the supposed ~25% wage growth Dems were running on.

If someone is living hand-to-mouth, struggling to keep a roof over their head and food in their stomach, the last thing they wanna hear about is fucking GDP or employment rates or the stock market. Millions of Americans are getting screwed by the economy, and when Democrats run on a message of prosperity, that spits in the face of their lived experiences. Meanwhile Trump tells them that the system is rigged and they're getting screwed. He points the finger at all the wrong things, of course, but at least he acknowledges that things suck, even if all his proposed "solutions" are all empty demagoguery.

Stop telling working Americans how great the economy is and start telling them what they want to hear, what they know in their bones is true: The system is rigged against you. The ownership class has spent the last 3 decades gleefully stealing our wages, raping the environment, and padding the pockets of politicians so that we all stay divided and distracted. Stop running for the economy and start running against it. Run against robber barons and union busters like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. Run against the Kochs and the Waltons who've been fighting for decades to keep wages low and the keep the pockets of rich politicians full with hundreds of millions in PAC money. Run against Comcast, run against Starbucks, run against fucking Nestle.

And while you're at it, stop taking economic policy advice from capitalist assholes like Mark Cuban. Stop flaunting all your celebrity endorsements — more rich people who understand absolutely nothing about the day to day lives of working Americans. And for the love of God... please, please stop running to the right at every opportunity you get.

[–] AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

So basically be Bernie Sanders...who they abandoned.

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago

Pretty much, yeah

[–] spacecadet@lemm.ee 15 points 6 days ago (15 children)

Is this low unemployment and wage growth in the room with us?

Unemployment is “low” because shitty gig economy jobs are counted as employment. And wages might be growing, but are lagging far behind inflation.

The majority of Americans aren’t sexist and racist, they are living paycheck to paycheck and some unlikable rich black woman from San Francisco isn’t going to be able to relate to a poor white man from Nebraska or even a Hispanic dude from El Paso. And you would think “neither should a rich ass hole from NYC”, but he at least pretends to care about them. Democrats have been demonizing the working class for over a decade and they are starting to reap what they sow.

I voted for Kamala, but she was a terrible candidate. She made no attempt to empathize with the plight of the majority of the working class voting base and instead was more worried about capturing the vote of rich trust fund babies that are being misgendered.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 17 points 6 days ago (1 children)

And wages might be growing, but are lagging far behind inflation.

To be very fair real wages grew during Biden's administration, but probably not enough and definitely not for everyone.

[–] raoul@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I think that the problem is that the metric used for measuring the wages growth is an average:

In a society where most of the wealth goes to a few, an average is not necessarily a good measure:

I like this image from this article from the fed

showing the part of the population having raises above the CPI

They have the following remark below this graph:

For example, about 57 percent of the WGT sample had positive real wage gains during 2019, whereas during 2022, only 45 percent of people had positive real wage growth. Put another way, despite higher median nominal wage growth, the share of people with positive real wage growth between 2019 and 2022 due to higher inflation fell by 12 percentage points.

Edit, from the bottom of the article:

Your own wage growth experience might not look like that of your neighbors or your colleagues, and it might not resemble that of the person with median wage growth either.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Wanna bet the places and sectors that are doing worse than median wage growth and inflation are rural and manual labor things? That second one especially I think could explain why some gen z men voted the way they did.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] EnderMB@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago (2 children)

While I get it, I still find it weird that so many British people, including card-carrying members of Labour and British journalists volunteered to campaign for a foreign politician. It's a damaging look in hindsight, and is likely why the US-UK relationship will be dead under Trump, as opposed to tight back in 2016.

With that said, he's not wrong. The US is absolutely not ready for this, and it'll take decades of education and a rebuilding of the Democrats to claw back from this.

[–] Ross_audio@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

It was dead the moment we didn't elect a low towing fop.

Russia funded and led the conservative movement here in the past 10 years. We got Brexit, we got incompetent government, they got a place to park their wealth (a lot of it is still here), they got crimes without much fuss.

Europe was weakened.

As the funding for Trump's loans and Musk's Twitter buyout as well the moment we woke up and voted for a different party we became a target state instead of a puppet state.

Even Boris Johnson realised we had to help Ukraine. They replaced him with Truss and Sunak, more controllable puppets.

There are of course other factors, but the effect of global oligarchs spending fossil fuel wealth is clear in Western Democracy at the moment. Saudi is another big influence, they court both sides as long as they aren't crossed.

Every crisis delays climate action, every election they can influence delays action. The longer they delay the more profit they get.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kn0wmad1c@programming.dev 13 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

"I know why she lost"

She lost because 11 million people sat out this election. That's it, that's all there is.

The fact is that most of this country leans blue, and when voters turn out, blue typically wins. This is why the GOP is doing everything they can to make sure people don't vote.

Trump has a vote ceiling of around 74, maybe 75 million. In 2020, 81 million people voted for Biden.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Why do you think 11 million people sat out?

Like, if you're walking down the street and one person calls you a horse they're a jerk, if two people call you a horse they're both jerks, but if everyone keeps calling you a horse maybe it's time to go get fitted for a saddle. The Dems got called a horse 11 million times here.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I really don’t think that sexism was the leading cause of her loss, or even one of the top causes.

She alienated a sizable voter group in a swing state, and people who are struggling to buy groceries are not going to vote for a person who is literally in the second highest executive position in the ruling party, unless they make changes people can see, and have a good campaign on change. When I heard harris give speeches I always thought “well, you have a direct ear to the president and are one of the highest ranking democrats in the US. Why don’t you use this to make change now?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LostMyRedditLogin@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Read the article everyone. This summary starting with gender bias is kind of bad. The main issue was the economy at the top.

[–] invertedspear@lemm.ee 8 points 6 days ago

The economy concern is straight up the issue, but the twist is that it has to be the economy as seen by people who don’t understand or don’t care about macro economics. GDP, inflation suppression, and all the other measures Biden did to help the economy wasn’t helping families buy groceries. And you can forget that trip to Disneyland. Buying power was still fucked. Now the carryover of those measures combined with the long-term bad but short term positive jolts of the next trump administration is going to increase buying power for just long enough for Donnie boy to take credit.

If you find yourself with extra money in the next 4 years, remember it’s borrowed against your future. Better to save it, or heavily reduce your debts than to get that new car it take that family trip.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

Because she was a seventh-choice candidate?

load more comments
view more: next ›