this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
103 points (94.0% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2454 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

Donations to Kamala Harris' campaign are now partially directed to a "Recount Account," raising speculation about a possible recount effort despite her recent concession to Donald Trump, who won with 312 Electoral College votes.

Although recounts in close states could be requested, Harris’ campaign has emphasized funding efforts to support close Senate and House races still undecided.

The campaign’s website urges donations to help "see the election across the finish line" for Democrats in Congress, while Republicans have already secured a Senate majority and the House remains in contention.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

There was nobody for them to vote for. That's absolutely the fault of the dems.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, I must have been hallucinating when I saw the black woman that spent the last 3 months campaigning.

[–] frosty99c@midwest.social 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] frosty99c@midwest.social 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

So some people felt they had no one to vote for.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Because she's a Republican? Or another woman? Because they didn't seem to have a problem with the several dozen prominent male Republicans who also endorsed her. They had no problems with a bunch of male Republicans who spent the past 9 years or so sucking off Trump. But Cheney, who sacrificed her position in the party and her entire political career to stand up to Trump while these guys all swallowed his dick, was a bridge too far to the point where they decided Trump was the better choice.

Gee. I wonder what the difference is between Liz Cheney and every male republican who endorsed Harris. I just can't seem to put my finger on it.....

[–] frosty99c@midwest.social 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

This has nothing to do with her gender. In fact, I just said 'a Cheney.' Dick Cheney also supported Kamala and that made people want to vote for her even less than Liz did. The fact that Kamala's positions are so far to the right that known war hawk Dick Cheney threw his support behind her is a BAD thing for a lot of left wing voters.

We weren't talking about people who voted for Trump instead of Kamala. We are talking about 15 million people who didn't show up because there was no one running that supported their values.

The fact that Kamala’s positions are so far to the right that known war hawk Dick Cheney threw his support behind her is a BAD thing for a lot of left wing voters.

Cheney didn't endorse Harris because of policy. It was more in line with orcs saying "even we can't get behind this Sauron guy." The fact you're regurgitating that propaganda says you've fallen for it, or were a vector to spread it.