this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
813 points (96.8% liked)

politics

19293 readers
2143 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
 

Harris only received five percent of Republican votes — less than the six percent Joe Biden won in 2020 when he beat Trump, as well as the seven percent won by Hillary Clinton in 2016 when she lost to him. While Harris won independents and moderates, she did so by smaller margins than Biden did in 2020.

Meanwhile, Harris lost households earning under $100,000, while Democratic turnout collapsed. Votes are still being counted, but Harris is on pace to underperform Biden’s 2020 totals by millions of votes.

(page 5) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 61 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I don't get why it's hard to comprehend. By becoming (even) more conservative, more "R", they betrayed (even more of) their base. Why would timid Republicans want to vote for traitors pandering to them?

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago

Democrats would prefer to lose than become more progressive because the rich and powerful still benefit from Republicans winning or Democrats winning as long as Democrats are still centre-right wing.

As soon as Democrats move left the elites start to lose so Democrats don't.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Shit I was saying when Biden was still running and I got crucified for it.

As you shift to the right you leave your base behind, ignoring a growing, left swinging faction within the party is going to lead to outcomes like this. Working class people all have the same problems, and one party says they'll do something about it. They're lying, people who are generally smarter and paying attention know they're lying, but that's not most people.

The other party has had a chance, and failed to do anything to alleviate the concerns of the working class. Regardless of the circumstances, or their actual ability to affect change. And they spent the entire election cycle trying to curry votes from a dedicated base instead of getting voters excited about something.

Swing left, swing hard. Become the unhinged leftist the other side is already accusing you of being.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 75 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Yes. When you abandon the left, they don't vote for you. This is what Clinton did too

[–] [email protected] 40 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

They have clearly internalized the pervasive trope that leftists will vote for them, because they have no other choice, so the only thing that matters to convince is the right. Looks like they calculated wrong.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Obama got people excited about healthcare reform. Biden got people excited about student debt relief. Clinton tried to get people excited about a female president and Harris centered her campaign around running against Trump.

Social programs get people excited.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Everyone needs to let them know how strongly this article is nailing it.

https://democrats.org/contact-us/

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Based on them already attacking Bernie, who sucked up to them so hard this last year, I doubt they're going to listen to anyone's opinion if it doesn't also come with millions of dollars

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (3 children)

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Michael Scott

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

Also explains their fundraising campaigns

I'm on my knees begging you to just give us money

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 90 points 2 months ago (2 children)

My take on this is that the DNC has never understood that to win the presidency in the last 20 years you need to be a fire brand.

I think this stared in 2008 with Obama who won I believe because he fired up the base with great speeches about hope and change. It didn't really happen, BUT the man knew how to give a speech. That got people inspired to do something and they voted.

Bernie was another fire brand - told it like it was and it appealed to a large population.

trump won using the same idea, but just the opposite of hope and change yet it worked. It tapped into a visceral and deep frustration that this country has left them behind.

The modern view of the American president to the population is less of a wonky politician and more of a cheerleader for big ideas, even if those ideas are abhorrent and exceedingly horrifying.

Harris just wasn't the person to pull this off, she was too wonky and it felt like the entire campaign was playing the old card of "we are not trump" Instead if they really wanted to win they would have found ( 2 years ago) a feisty out spoken progressive leaning firebrand that would have inspired people to vote for something better.

The only reason that (bland) Biden won was because of how badly trump fucked up the Covid response.

[–] [email protected] 69 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

I think when she was announced as the candidate, she fired up the base just fine. She was different.

Then she spent the rest of the campaign reassuring people that nothing would change, pissing away that enthusiasm.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

One of the frustrations I had was her solution to the housing problem was to just build more houses and give out some money. Sure great, but what I wanted to hear, and I think many other also wanted to hear, was her talking about corporate hording of housing and what she would do about that situation. But she just ignored it completely and so did Biden.

I think instead if she came out swinging against corporate greed, even if she actually did nothing about it, would have given her more votes.

My one hope out of this is that the massive swing to the right will be countered with more vocal progressives.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Exactly. "I'm not trump" barely got Biden in when trump was the incumbent with covid running rampant. It didn't work for Clinton in 2016 and unsurprisingly it didn't work for Harris in 2024. The level of incompetence at the DNC really makes me think the actual goal is to prevent our politics/country from shifting to the left at any cost.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago

My feeling is that once the DNC starts to acknowledge the progressive ideas then they open the flood gates to challengers to their (limited) power.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›