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
19144 readers
2267 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They saw a woman was running for President and decided they didn't care. It's as simple as that. Sexism gave the election to Trump
We can point fingers at demographics, and certainly that may have been a part, but its reductive to say just sexism. If we accept any single reason, there will be no reason to improve our platforms.
You've got Democratic leaning media blaming the dems for being too woke.. and more than half the country just didn't vote. We need a platform that argues in favor of worker and individual rights alike while not capitulating on either, because as soon as you do capitulate to the right, you lose support, plain and simple.
These people are throwing as much shit at the wall desperately to find anything to blame other then the Democratic Party. Perhaps it is a coping mechanism because the democrats would rather cling to First-past-the-post voting with rigor mortis clenched hands then to have to actually compete for your vote.
A trump presidency over breaking the two party system.
Party over country.
I understand to the kneejerk reactions to critique of the dems, but ffs this should be easy to win and who else do you critique then? Actually bring some change to the table and people will perk up to it. They've just let the repubs define them instead of doing anything to even make a name for themselves. At this rate I don't think we'll ever get ranked choice, unfortunately. Won't stop me from trying.
When the only voters who sat out were white and hispanic men then what would be the logical reason?
Why didn't women sit out this election at the same rates? Why not any other groups besides white and hispanic men?
What other conclusions can you even draw for these specific groups that have masculinity issues than not voting for a woman?
Let me go ask my whole voting block brb
Make sure you phrase it so you don't accidentally emasculate the white and hispanic men
Latinos shift to Trump won him the election. Harris had the white and black support she needed
We cant split hairs on demographic turnout if overall turnout is way down from 2020, I mean we can make Latinos a scapegoat, but again we're completely subverting critique that could actually help win an election.
Im not trying to scapegoat. I’m just pointing out the facts.
The fact is those margins in the Hispanic community would barely make a dent on overall turnout? Hence, scapegoating.
If every white and hispanic man who voted for biden also voted for harris then she would have won
Acknowledging reality is not scapegoating
7,000,000 less votes than Biden has is beyond any single percent margin in minority populations. Even if.. what are you going to do? Harp on said demographics foe making the wrong choice for 4 years? Self righteousness ain't gonna solve the lost vote. Ask why things happen once in a while.
53% of white women voted for Trump. Your "America won't vote for a woman" argument doesn't hold water.
Americans won't vote for specific women, sure. Namely Hillary Clinton, and Kamala Harris. The fact that they are women is not why they lost so cataclysmically; they ran platforms that were deeply unengaging to Democrat and Independent voters. Worse, they tried to appeal to Republicans, which only underscored how out-of-touch and unprepared they were to hold the office. Moreover, neither of those specific women, nor the DNC that backed them seems to have learned anything from their continual failures, which, again, only deepens the divide among Democrats' necessary coalitions.
Their failures are a function of being bad at post-Obama politics, and bad at running for the highest office in the land. It's not because they are women.
Nah, had Tulsi stayed with Democrats, and ran against Trump I would have voted for Tulsi. Instead, Tulsi joined Trump, and I voted for Trump. If Tulsi runs again, I'll vote for Tulsi.
Just watch this (again), there's Joe, Kamala, and Tulsi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4fjA0K2EeE
Your fanclub doesn't represent a significant demographic, nobody cares what Tulcels think. Plus, it's not like the democrats can control her, she's an opprotunist who flips whenever she feels like and stands for nothing.
We can say the same about Stein.
Partially true. I didn't vote for Stein (I voted PSL), but the Green party is ideologically closer to leftists than the major parties. It's kind of the same on the other side for the Libertarian party, there are more Republicans and non-voters with Libertarian beliefs than there are people who vote Libertarian. Stein herself does seem like something of an opportunist, but she doesn't rely on the same kind of niche cult of personality that Tulsi has built for herself. Most people just know of Stein through the Green party, which does represent various legitimate beliefs.
The policies that we on the left advocate for have the potential to reach a wider audience than just people who are already ideologically committed. By running on a platform that would materially benefit people, it's easier to make the case that people should support the left, regardless of who they are or how they view themselves politically. You're free to write off people like me, but it's not as if we're the only ones who like having healthcare, for instance.
Tulsi is one of countless odious personalities that carve out one specific sliver of the population and speak to them exclusively, and fixate on tiny bits of information that support a narrative that's completely out of line with the broader truth. "If you're anti-war, you should vote Republican. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, calling for ever more exorbitant military spending, saber-rattling with everyone, conducting assassinations and bombing campaigns. And pay no attention to the fact that I myself was on Fox News attacking Obama from the right for not being aggressive enough in the War on Terror, and literally described myself as a hawk regarding it."
She is part of a pipeline that takes people with valid, left-leaning criticisms of the Democratic party and convinces them to accept the Republicans as an alternative, despite them being worse in every respect. She's absolute scum, and she discredits people like me, who actually are anti-war, not just when it means criticizing the Democrats. I will always call out her and her ridiculous little fanclub, who have clearly never read an actual goddamn book in their lives. And the same goes for people like Jimmy Dore and Jackson Hinkle too.
Sorry for the confusion. I was referencing this comment:
Most every group that's not Republican or Democrat is in that boat. Not enough people to even get recognized. Very seldom do we see others even get a seat at the table.
There's no confusion, I addressed that. The Greens and Libertarians both represent broader, legitimate ideological currents, held by people who mostly either fall in line behind the lesser evil or don't vote because they see it as futile. Tulsi's just a grifter.
They shouldn't have run a woman. This election was too important.
I literally lol I'd. I hope that was satire. 😂
That depends. Did Trump win because of sexism? If so, then it's not satire. On the other hand...