this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2025
102 points (100.0% liked)

politics

23261 readers
2751 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 74 points 3 months ago (2 children)

(A Harris source admits the campaign could have made her more available for podcasts if they had more time, saying, “If we had had a six-month runway instead of 107 days … does she do Martha Stewart’s podcast? Does she do something with Ina Garten?… There’s so much, so many things that you can do, but we just didn’t have time.”)

These people will never fucking learn. Martha Stewart and Ina Garten occupy a fraction of the podcast space, which has very quickly come to take up the same platform as late night TV did twenty years ago or radio did before that. Don't forget that Bill Clinton's media blitz making him look like a normal, likeable guy is attributed to his presidency.

I don't like Joe Rogan or listen to JRE but it's obvious that scorning the largest audience in the world is ridiculous. Bernie did it and the comments on YT are overwhelmingly supportive of him. To just write off that entire audience as a lost cause was campaign suicide, even before the whole "i would put a Republican in my cabinet, thank you Liz Cheney" stuff happened, especially as we keep seeing that this election was determined by poor, economically stunted and socially disaffected young men.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The two examples are rich white women. Just still absolutely tone deaf

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, no, no, surely you don't get it: the Harris campaign didn't target affluent, suburban white women enough. With a 6-month extension, they could've surely carved out enough support to counter Trump's gains in literally every relevant demographic.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They just needed more cheneys.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago

"What would you do different from Biden?"

"Nothing in particular."

"... you wanna try that one again?"

"I would put a Republican in my cabinet"

How didn't that work???

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If they had 6 months, these examples would have given us way more things to point to on why Harris lost.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

If she had time to run a proper campaign, then they would have had time to conduct a primary. If they would have had a primary, she wouldn’t have been campaigning.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 3 months ago (3 children)

We don't need campaign insiders to tell us anything. We watched her do all the wrong things, just as any corporate democrat candidate would. It's not like anything was a secret. If she wanted workers' votes, all she had to do was actually push some decent policies.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

all she had to do was actually push some decent policies.

yeah you showed that woman what for, and the next 4 are going to be simply GRAND.

pfft.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 months ago (7 children)

I held my nose and voted for her. She would have been so much better then Trump but she was still a bad candidate.

Critiquing the unpopular policies she ran under and lost with might help the Democratic party get it's shit together next time.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I wasn't trying to show her anything. Why would I? Why would anyone? You have really strange views on how people choose who to vote for.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

yeah i'd like to hear from Dem voters that didn't vote for Harris

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (11 children)

Like for realsies, or just to shout at them? Because this being lemmy and all...

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 3 months ago (1 children)

When they started listening to Democrat leadership instead of going with the momentum, I knew it was over. Pelosi and the gang urged the campaign to stop using "weird" and to court centrists with the Cheyne stunt.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If she had publically turned on Pelosi instead of bowing to her, she might have won. Hell, might have even had more luck attracting people on the right who didn't like Trump that way.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

One of the things the MAGA heads I used to live around liked about Bernie was that he was giving Clinton grief.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is it too cynical to say that her billion dollar campaign was a money laundering operation?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

A lot of this information is public because they had to file their campaign spend with the FEC. They spent a fuck ton buying ad spots on social media, TV, billboards, print, etc.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago (2 children)

They gave a lot of money to their consultants and advertisers, all perfectly legal.

Cui bono?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

By god that seems like the dumbest possible choice given that the Democrats are routinely criticized for being elite and out of touch.

How about a giant, ever gazing, magical, orb displaying our leader's head with a command for the public? Surely that will make us seem down to earth and in touch with the common person.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago

How about a giant, ever gazing magical or displaying our leaders head with a command for the public?

At a rate of $1,000,000 per week, no less.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 months ago (2 children)

They lost because they were offering the same bs they always do. No amount of time would have saved them. Trump won because he said he would do things differently. Harris lost because she wasted time fighting the Trump icon instead of offering solutions for everyday people.

Hopefully this failure will help push forth a party for the people instead of the garbage us vs them that we always get from both major parties.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Trump won because americans are so incredibly stupid as a nation they think a felon who attempted coup to stay in power is better than a traditionally bad candidate.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Democrats thought they could get away with running a traditionally bad candidate.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

As a food analogy harris is a soggy burger thats sat in the fridge for 2 days and wasn't good to begin with. Instead of eating the burger every single person in america who did not vote for harris went outside and ate a pile of glass shards.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago

Instead of eating the burger every single person in america who did not vote for harris went outside and ate a pile of glass shards.

sigh

People stayed home because Harris was a shit candidate. Like everyone on the left warned centrists they would. But since centrists would rather eat that pile of glass shards than ever listen to anyone to their left about anything, trump won.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I'm not really sure any of this even matters. The dems probably lost for something as stupid as inflation being attributed to the current administration. I bet if that doesn't come down or gets worse congress is gonna flip right back in two years. Everyone here has the damn memory of a goldfish.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Its crazy, they spent all that money when all they had to say on live TV to win everyone over (if all you want is to win of course) by saying fuck Israel, no more arms, and fuck all of you being poor, we're going to fix that shit like we did a century ago. Thats all they had to do imo. The Steam from it would have reverberated through every nook and crany.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They could have handled the Michigan problem in a lower key. Letting them speak at the convention and promising real investigations with paused shipments. That way they get the moral high ground for both sides without taking a side.

And as for the affordability crisis. All they had to do was say, we know we have more work to do, we successfully avoided a recession and more we must make sure we don't leave everyday Americans behind. Then go on to talk about trust busting, grocery prices, housing prices, car prices.

Instead they chose fear mongering and status quo. It was an out of touch campaign run by out of touch corporate elites.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They could have handled the Michigan problem in a lower key. Letting them speak at the convention and promising real investigations with paused shipments.

Exactly. As much as I wish Americans were ready to cut off aid to Israel, that's just not the case. The majority of Americans disapprove of Israel's actions in Gaza, but they're still broadly supportive of Israel. Labeling the conflict a genocide and ending all military support would have won me over, but it probably would have been a net loss. Still, there were a lot of small steps they could have taken to show support to the Palestinian population and capitalize on the growing disapproval on Gaza, and instead they chose full-throated support.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

This is so fucking naive. Majority of Americans don't give a shit about the Palestinian people.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

Well, if those that do aren't significant enough to listen to, they're not significant enough to blame.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Most people care their tax dollars are being spent on genocide. Even if the sales make us money.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago

No way, instead let me bombard you with emails like a needy ex.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah don't forget to add the fact she couldn't differentiate herself from biden on the palestine issue

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago

Yeah don’t forget to add the fact she couldn’t differentiate herself from biden on the palestine issue

She absolutely could have. She chose not to.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Not one word in there about turning to the right, campaigning with Cheneys, ignoring all progressive policies, and generally behaving like R-lite in a bid to court R-votes that never came, with no message other than "look how much worse Trump is". I'm a little disappointed in Rolling Stone, but not at all surprised that the people they interviewed left those things out.

Ultimately, if this is their analysis, they'll make the 2016 mistakes for a third time in 2028.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Don't over analyze it, America is not ready for a woman to be president. So many women just want to take down other women that its just not time, which is sad. Adding some racial diversity in there just sealed the deal.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Funny how female Democratic senators won in three of the swing states Kamala lost, almost as if sexism wasn't the deciding factor... but that could imply that Kamala failed for a reason that's potentially her own fault, which might require some kind of self-reflection on the part of the Democratic party, and we absolutely can't have that under any circumstances. The Democrats can never fail, they can only be failed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

More women voted for Hillary than Kamala by percent. The gender gap was way wider too. You can literally just look at the statistics and disprove your own bullshit. Kamala didn't lose because she was a woman because even compared to the other recent woman candidate she did poorly with women.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

Meh... Less than 3 million vote swing and everyone is clamoring to explain how this is the most successful precise strategic political victory in history for Democrats. Instead everyone has their own opinion about why it's the greatest meandering boondoggle ever.

I think the gist of the article is correct. And it could be written a lot shorter. Basically Democrats have ignored men. It's been about 10 years and they still don't get it. Men are people too. We vote.

Yeah we suck. We're shitlord ra[p|c]ists. So forget about men, right? We're persona non grata. Pretty much the Democrat strategy of this generation. Both parties have siloed into their own base. Unfortunately for Democrats they don't have the disaffected male vote which is costing them greatly.

This wasn't so much a political loss for the Democrats. It was a cultural one. Politically the people want liberal policy. As evidenced by the fact that without the lens of partisanship, people tend to prefer what liberals offer. e.g. Obamacare without the stink of "Obamacare" is just healthcare that even republicans support and rely on.

Republicans are winning the culture war which is translating to sweeping political victories. As much as the claim to be taking devastating hits in the face of some made up Democrat goliath of oppression. Reality has proven to be the opposite. Democrats are not in tune with the people. Having entertainment and the music industry has only gotten them 1 for 3 in as many elections.

The article is wrong about Democrats having mainstream media on their side. MSM supports Trump. It was clear in 2016 for those of us keeping score. Trump was the medias favorite to win back then too. They loved the ratings. Now? I think some of them have simply gone mask off. "Sanewashing" as people are calling it. The media won't cover things as they are. They stretch the overton window to normalize the far right while the left gets no such reciprocation.

The article is also wrong about gamers being historically progressive. This is a fictional archetype of innocent nice-guy nerds. This is basically an entirely made up Hollywood movie trope. Gamers have always been reactionary. The difference is that gamers we're not political.

And I think "gamer" should be expanded to internet culture. The historically predominantly male online nerd cultures but we'll keep calling them "gamers" here.

Republicans identified this back in 2016. Democrats are still clueless about it in 2025. Just a bunch of edgelord gamer kids who don't vote anyways. Those kids are now adults. In fact many of those gamers were adults back then too. Yeah they're pathetic old man-children playing video games all day but they vote none the less. At least they can be persuaded to which is what Republicans have been doing. So by now Democrats have lost generations of voting age men. They will continue to fight this ever steeper uphill battle.

Nobody on the left has an answer for how to actually reach these voters. It's made even more difficult when people won't even acknowledge the fact that these men we're not ever progressive to begin with. Gamers have always been racist and sexist. The difference that people can't attune to is that they were not political so they assume these nerds must be progressive by default. Because shouting n-bombs is fine when you follow up with "it's just a joke bro". To be frank people seem to have fallen for one of the oldest tricks when someone says "I'm no racist but ... It's just the facts bro. You can't argue with facts." That's a classic gamer-isms / internet-isms.

Gamers did not pivot into reactionary. They were activated politically. It's an old meme that you would not be anyone's "personal army". In other words you'd remain apolitical. Not to be mistaken for not having political opinions but that you wouldn't be actively engaged in politics. Republicans blew up floodgates holding that back. Another meme was to "hide your power level". In other words don't reveal you're far right opinions. Another thing that was done away with. But really it was a symbolic gesture since nobody really hid their bigotry online. Especially not gamers.

Democrats should have prioritized trying strategize this problem. They've had 10 years of ignoring it. They've dug their own grave at this point. If they still don't know these basic things about internet culture then they're doomed to keep losing in the foreseeable future.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The economic messaging was the main thing but even taking that as a given that they had to follow their donors' interests, it was just a really poorly executed campaign. Had to be to get the worst results since the Republicans won California. Tbh Harris just has terrible political instincts and she would've never survived a competitive primary (as evidenced by 2020).

One thing that's staggering to me is that they left Hasan Piker as an untapped resource. I'm not like a big fan of his but if you have this field of streamers where all the big names are right-wing, except one, you should really consider, like, figuring out what he's tapping into or doing right, idk, hire him as a consultant, go on his stream, do something with him. The Democrats are so slow to adapt strategically while the Republicans are much quicker to adapt, and idk what that's about, complacency ig.

Obviously the Dick Cheney strategy was completely useless, as usual. Democrats are married to this conventional wisdom, treated as a truism, that the way to win is by appealing to the median centrist voter, along this purely one dimensional spectrum of politics which is completely divorced from reality. I suspect the article is correct that they're too caught up in analytics that they lose sight of how people actually think.

load more comments
view more: next ›