Political Discussion and Commentary
A place to discuss politics and offer political commentary. Self posts are preferred, but links to current events and news are allowed. Opinion pieces are welcome on a case by case basis, and discussion of and disagreement about issues is encouraged!
The intent is for this community to be an area for open & respectful discussion on current political issues, news & events, and that means we all have a responsibility to be open, honest, and sincere. We place as much emphasis on good content as good behavior, but the latter is more important if we want to ensure this community remains healthy and vibrant.
Content Rules:
- Self posts preferred.
- Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
- No spam or self promotion.
- Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.
Commentary Rules
- Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
- Stay on topic.
- Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
- Provide credible sources whenever possible.
- Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
- Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
- Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).
Please try to up/downvote based on contribution to discussion, not on whether you agree or disagree with the commenter.
Partnered Communities:
• Politics
• Science
view the rest of the comments
What bugs me about this election is that turnout of GOP and independent voters surpassed Dem turnout.
This makes me wonder if a bunch of former Dems switched parties between 2020 and now. Which would suggest that voters themselves are swinging rightward.
Consider that he's gained in previously blue strongholds, like in Beverly Hills as per https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-07/trump-victory-by-the-numbers/104573034 and even in Brooklyn as per https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/06/trump-voter-gains-new-york-00188078
To me, this seems to justify the Dems rightward swing - they are following the voters. No wonder Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney at her side.
But, it also makes me feel kinda sick inside. If the country as a whole is swinging rightward, that makes me wonder where I fit in - or even if there is any room at all with someone with my beliefs.
What a ridiculous takeaway. They moved right and lost, but somehow this shows that moving right was the correct decision? That's nonsense, it shows the exact opposite.
The Cheneys do not represent any substantial constituency. Virtually nobody likes them, right or left. Kamala went chasing after the mythical "moderate republican swing voter," and they told her go fuck yourself the way they always do, and in the meantime she neglected her actual base which meant less enthusiasm and mobilization.
The democrats have tried this shit over and over. The people who like right-wing politics already have a party catering to them that they're happy with. How many times does this strategy have to result in abject failure before you start to question it?
Not the first time I've heard this bullshit either,. It's a surprisingly common talking point among centrists, even though it's so blatantly stupid. Oh, the Democrats are going to the right because the left won't vote for them? Well, the right won't fucking vote for them either, so why are they still moving right? Why is courting the right a reasonable and smart thing to do, while courting the left is dumb and bad? Especially when they keep courting the right and they keep fucking losing?
Sorry, you are saying that folks joined the GOP and voted for orange voldemort because .. he was to the left of Dems?
As part of a broader coalition. Not after them solely.
I disagree. She was on places like "Call Me Daddy" and SNL - the outreach was there.
Well, it worked in 2020, but not in 2024. Meanwhile, Clinton did not purse this in 2016 - instead calling the worst of these folks "deplorables" - and still lost.
So the answer is - certainly more than just the one time.
Trump got 72 million votes in 2024, compared to 74 million votes in 2020, so I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that Dem voters moved to Trump. Trump just successfully turned out the same base of supporters that he had before, while Harris didn't. But even if your claim were true, it would still indicate that moving to the right is ineffective, because in that case it failed to stop them from leaving. It's just utter nonsense no matter how you try to look at it.
I cannot possibly emphasize enough how much I do not mean "going on SNL" when I talk about mobilizing and energizing the base.
So that one comment outweighs the entire rest of the campaign where she moved to the right to try to appeal to moderate republicans?
Hey, you know what, Harris called republicans "weird." So I guess we can't count this either as an example of your ideology being proven decisively wrong for the upteenth time. And the next time that the democrats try this and it blows up in their face yet again, there will be some random comment that means you can exclude that data point too.
This makes me think you're replying without reading. I'll make it easy for you though and quote my earlier comment,
Moving on,
This is a good point. Agreed.
Citation needed.
What I'm aware of (e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/11/07/uncalled-house-senate-races-popular-vote-2024-election/ - https://archive.is/W93jB) says we don't have the final popular vote counts yet.
No, nonsense doesn't make sense. But this does make sense. The issue is - if I'm right and the whole country is moving rightward, then Dems can only survive by also moving to the right.
In other words, one interpretation is that Dems and Harris didn't go far right enough.
I hope that's wrong though, since it suggests lefties like myself are an endangered breed.
That's fair - would be helpful then if you state what you do mean. Or in other words, what you think would be effective in "mobilizing and energizing the base."
It wouldn't - if that had happened. But - while it is true Clinton tried to get moderate Republicans on board back in 2016, she really didn't shift at all for them. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/while-wooing-republicans-clinton-sticks-progressive-policy-n628501
Again, it's more than just a random comment.
Hmm.. I don't recall this actually. Citation needed.
Well, you can't count it as that, but for a different reason - you've failed to prove anything wrong, let alone decisively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election
The final vote totals are not in yet, true, but I'm going off what information we have now.
Well, the good news is that you are completely wrong.
Harris lost for two very simple reasons. First, because she attached herself to a status quo that many people were dissatisfied with. Second, because she attempted your shitty strategy of shifting right to win over republicans, when republicans are perfectly satisfied with the party they've got.
You're operating on lots of false assumptions, like this idea that who people vote for just comes down to who's closer to them on the political compass or something. Honestly, Harris could've run to the right of Trump on every issue and Trump supporters still wouldn't vote for her. That's just how reality is, and your ideology is out of line with it.
Running a progressive campaign with progressive policy. Not punching left. Not supporting genocide. Not bragging about Dick Cheney being on your side.
Even just calling Republicans weird was actually working but she couldn't even stick with that because she was too concerned with winning over the mythical moderate republican vote.
Really?
Yep. So that happened very close to Biden dropping out, hence I think I missed it in all the noise about the change.
It's good to have source though. In this case it provided additional context - the comments were limited to the top two, unlike Clinton who insulted potential voters. (Actually let's not kid ourselves - these folks almost certainly voted against her in the end.)
That's not unreasonable, but I'd argue it's premature. If the results change, that could invalidate the conclusion.
The sources I referenced seem to disagree with you, but after all they may yet be proven to have jumped to conclusions too soon as well.
Like I said, it's premature to conclude this.
I'll grant you this - if the final numbers show that the GOP didn't get more than 2020, and Harris ended up getting a lot less than Biden did (on the order of tens of millions), then I'll concede and agree.
Though I'll through in an additional wrench - I'd want to see what happens with the popular vote in California specifically. To rule out things like Dem voters in Republican or battleground states getting their votes suppressed as being the cause of the GOP win.
But if the numbers say differently - that more people voted this year overall, for example, then I'd argue that supports my original (and deeply disappointing) case. (I'm not sure year if 2020 is the right comparison either due to the effects of the pandemic - that might have been an unrepeatable one off. I'd also want to compare to 2008 or 2012 after adjusting the numbers for population changes.
Agreed. I confess that why his core voters like him so much remains a bit of mystery to me - even the most extreme on the right haven't been able to displace this guy, a new york liberal who basically stole their playbook and used the bits he liked.
But this puzzles me less than a Clinton and Biden supporting Dem turning red this year.
Like Clinton did in 2016, as per the NBC source I referenced earlier? We know how that turned out.
Yup, agreed. I can see Palestine/Gaza indeed being a sticking point. I still will never understand those folks who voted GOP because they didn't like Biden/Harris on Gaza - which many claimed to do as per https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/14/hamtramck-donald-trump-arab-american-muslim - but I could easily understand them sitting out or voting third party. And with Dick Cheney's history, that might influence single issue voters negatively who might otherwise be primed to want to believe in the best of intentions from Harris.
Of course, Harris was between a rock and a hard place on this issue - but we don't need to rehash all of that. From what's coming out now, it's clear that Harris wasn't able to strike the necessary balance and win over this important voting bloc - such as https://www.voanews.com/a/in-historic-shift-american-muslim-and-arab-voters-desert-democrats/7854995.html and https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/11/7/dont-dare-blame-arab-and-muslim-americans-for-trumps-victory - and I certainly can't rule out the possibility that your suggestion here might have been enough to swing things the other way.
If that's false - then how do people choose who to vote for? What else would be the measure that they use?
Well, they also tend to follow endorsements (hence why AOC and Sanders endorsed Harris), and do things like punish the incumbent if the economy feels really bad, etc. I'd agree that closeness isn't the sole thing.
Per your citation it was just the two folks who are heading to the White House, not Republicans generally.
Actually, she did - see https://www.npr.org/2024/10/30/nx-s1-5170908/harris-argues-that-trump-poses-a-threat-to-democracy-in-the-final-days-of-the-race & https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/15/harris-slams-trump-in-pennsylvania-as-us-election-race-heats-up
Christ. If Hilary Clinton is your idea of a progressive candidate and going on SNL is your idea of mobilizing the base, then you are just on a wavelength that is so far removed from mine that frankly I don't think there's any real possibility of a productive conversation.
Seriously, come on. People have all sorts of reasons for chosing a candidate. This is so obvious that I shouldn't have to explain it.
For the record, Clinton wasn't progressive enough for me (but I would have indeed settled on her back in 2016) and I don't watch SNL (though considering how many do, I still think it's great outreach).
But I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Here's a great post - https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229 - describing how much and how well Dems turned out this year (with the estimate being that Dems will have actually beat their 2020 numbers once the popular vote count is finished). It's just that red voters turned out in even higher numbers this year.
Since the final popular vote tally is still unknown, it is speculative, but if it's right, then I think it's enough to disprove your contention (that Harris lost because turnout from Dems was low because they were turned off by the lack of progressive policies and Gaza and etc - this can't be the reason if turnout went up instead of down!).
That's still speculation, but whether it's more people voting Trump or fewer people voting Democrat is a moot point. If the Dems moving right led to the outcome that more people voted Trump, then it was still a losing strategy.
On that last point - I'm moving to the view that you're right - it is a losing strategy.
As another commenter in this thread pointed out, https://lemmy.world/comment/13326761 , it's the economy that was the biggest factor. That will always shift wins to the opposing party.
This tells me that a) 2024 might have just been unwinnable, as the economy really really sucked due to factors out of the control of anyone in the USA (Ukraine war still having devastating impacts on the US economy today).
But it also suggests that if we still have all the same elections that we expect to in 2026 and 2028, then Dems would be able to make a major comeback without changing much as this idiot trashes the economy. Alas, that feels like a really big if right now, and it shouldn't be.
Funny where you cut off the part where I list some of the other reasons. I'd agree that it's obvious that people have all sorts of reasons for choosing a candidate, but what didn't compute for me is why someone who would be more progressive - or even just pro-Gaza - would support the anti-progressive who wanted to let Israel's prime minister "finish the job", so to speak.
Well, it can be worthwhile explaining it anyways sometimes. Often I've seen two people who actually agree but keep arguing because of semantics or the like, but if it's all laid out plainly then these tend to quickly come to an agreement. Other times, it's useful just to see how far the "wavelengths" are apart, as you put it.
Very few people supported Trump because they thought he'd be better on Gaza. Some may have chosen to take a gamble on literally anyone because the Dems are so bad on it, but I doubt that represents a major bloc.
On the other hand, I think it does represent a major factor when it comes to the economy. People are dissatisfied with the status quo and Kamala ran on the status quo. Trump was able to present himself as an alternative, and he was the only other choice.
I honestly think she could have not just mobilized more democrats, but also peeled off more republicans by seperaring from Biden's economic policies and presenting a further left alternative. Not everyone who votes republican is ideologically committed.
From the sources I referenced earlier though it seems like may have been what broke the core three swing states - Arab voters who backed Biden in 2020 flipped to the GOP in 2024. In absolute terms the margins by which Penn and Michigan turned red are tiny - so it's easy to believe that winning over the Arab vote would have made all the difference in the EC.
That was the one major issue that I wasn't sure on w.r.t. Harris. It seems to me like she did everything else right except that. Now, she was between a rock and a hard place there - but perhaps she should have counted on the Jewish voting block staying loyal no matter what and then appeased this group by much stronger measures.
Anyways, I saw a Harris win as being the last chance to implement a plan to reform the entire system and give progressives and far-left folks a fair chance, starting with a bunch of new constitutional amendments that would get ratified. But now I fear the exact opposite may happen. It all depends on who takes the House majority.
She did truly so much stuff wrong. The only reason I thought she had any chance at all was because Trump is such a shitty candidate that the bar was very low. She was a bad candidate who never would've won a normal primary, like 2020 showed, and she underperformed downballot candidates all over the place, including Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin, where democratic senators won or are winning, and which combined make up enough EVs to win (not to mention PA where the senate candidate outperformed Harris but lost by a hair, or NC which elected a democratic governor by a wide margin).
Losing Arab voters was probably enough to cost her the election, but even with them it's doubtful she would've won. There was a 14 point swing among Hispanic voters compared to last election, likely because of the Democrats pivoting right on immigration, and the economy was voters' biggest concern where Harris' messaging was very weak. Fundamentally, this whole strategy that they tried that you apparently like of dismissing everyone's concerns except the moderate republicans who were never going to vote democrat is completely self-defeating.
I'm open to the idea that there were other mistakes made, but ideally the list of this should at least be spelled out.
I'll start. Gaza. Also, https://theintercept.com/2024/11/07/harris-trump-election-immigration-border/
Well, 2020 was not a normal primary, with "electability" being too much of a concern as per https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/electability-eye-beholder-what-hell-do-we-actually-know-about-n1020576
Hmm. This is a good point but I think that there may be another explanation for this. These races wouldn't have been so tied to Gaza or the immigration/deportation and border issues, so it's possible Harris took a big it from that while downballot, there wasn't any hit. And the underperformance isn't that wide - the GOP won most of the battleground Senate races to take majority control over the Senate.
That statement contradicts itself. Either losing them cost her the election - meaning that having them on board would have saved her and lifted her to a win - or they didn't, because they weren't enough to win.
This is another puzzling point. It's true that there was a shift here - see for example https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/01/31/biden-border-immigration-bills-congress-2024/72399226007/ - but while he's to the right of where say Obama was, he's still to the left of orange voldemort. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68428154 and https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-06-18/in-an-immigration-pivot-biden-announces-plan-for-undocumented-spouses as compared to https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/trump-2024-immigration-policy-mass-deportations-stephen-miller/
Talk about cutting off the nose to spite the face.
I mean we know some did, since they told us. Liz Cheney for example voted Harris.
You'd have to list out which concerns got dismissed?
Obviously I don't agree - dismissing everyone's concerns does seem like a bad idea - but I also don't think everyone's concerns were dismissed. Rather, Harris supported a $15 minimum wage floor - https://ca.news.yahoo.com/harris-voices-support-15-minimum-172336812.html - and there were hopes that this could go even higher once she was elected. She also supported Medicare For All in this election - https://abcnews.go.com/Health/kamala-harris-stands-health-care-issues-vies-democratic/story?id=112159503
Of course one of the most prominent issues was Gaza, but I'd argue that even here the concerns weren't dismissed, not with Harris saying that she will not be silent on human suffering in Gaza as per https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kamala-harris-tailors-ad-messaging-on-gaza-israel-to-sway-michigan-pennsylvania-voters/ar-AA1toi71 - but this message simply was not strong enough.
Waiting on final numbers, but from the unsourced estimates in the other post, it seems like this is a false narrative. Rather than former Dems voting red like I first thought, it seems previous non-voters turned out red instead. As to why...
I think this is the only point where we agree on. I'm seeing elsewhere, e.g. https://apnews.com/article/trump-harris-economy-immigration-11db37c033328a7ef6af71fe0a104604 , that this is exactly why some shifted.
But as VP Harris probably couldn't have divorced herself from the economy.
So 2020 was not a normal primary, but one held in 2024 wouldn't have been either. I think we are agreed on this point - had an actual primary taken place, that weakness would have been exposed, and someone other than Harris - who could more easily distance themselves from the most disliked parts and policies of the Biden-Harris administration - could have carried the torch, improving the odds of a win.
I've been talking about the problems the whole time.
Kamala was the media's preferred candidate and was widely treated as a frontrunner but mismanaged her campaign to the point of dropping out before a single vote was cast. Voters weren't the problem here, as nobody ever got a chance to vote for her in the first place because of her bungled campaign.
There's a difference between taking majority control over the Senate and winning most of the battleground states. Republicans flipped four states: West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Montana. West Virginia and Montana are both solidly red states, and it wasn't very realistic that the democrats would ever hold either with the shift towards political polarization. The Republicans really just won two battleground states, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and the PA race was extremely close. Democrats, meanwhile, won Michigan and Wisconsin, and are ahead in Arizona and Nevada. Democrats won most of the battleground senate races, it's just that the senate seats up for reelection were favorable to Republicans. Looking just at the senate races, it was a pretty respectable result for the democrats, it could have been a lot worse - this despite the fact that Kamala got the worst result of any Dem candidate since 20 years ago.
It's not puzzling at all. Many Latinos have conservative social values, but in the past they were willing to look past that because there was a substantive difference between the Republicans and Democrats on the issue, and they could be convinced that Trump's focus on immigration was racist. When the democrats dropped that and adopted right-wing positions on immigration, that reason disappeared.
The problem is that you have these deep rooted lesser-evilist brainworms that don't actually reflect reality. Everything would make more sense if you ripped them out and stopped looking at things from that perspective and assuming everyone else sees things that way.
That is literally one person. A person who does not in any way reflect a significant constituancy of voters. What a ridiculous argument.
That statement and a quarter will by you a piece of gum.
She was always very clear on supplying arms to Israel completely unconditionally. Nobody gives a shit about sweet talk, we wanted actual material action. It's like handing a mass shooter another clip while asking him politely to pretty please stop and saying that you disapprove of what he's doing and by the way there's more ammo where that came from if he'd like to keep going.
The message wasn't strong enough because it was bullshit.
I disagree. To some extent, sure, she's be associated with it, but she could have at least tried to distance herself from it. Hell, she could've said something like, "Look, the economy's not great, but that's because we were recovering from COVID. We had to make the best of a bad situation. But going forward, things will be different, before we were merely mitigating the damage, but now, with your support, we can begin building towards a future that will be brighter than ever. We are going to [policy X, Y, and Z]." Instead the messaging was more along the lines of, "The economy is great, actually, and anyone who says otherwise is trying to sow discord and get Trump elected."
Democrats have this pathological inability to self-criticize, accept fault, or just awknowledge problems, and Kamala was a particularly bad example of this. It alienates people and speaks to a lack of confidence. What harm would there be in distancing herself, at least a little, from Joe Biden? Is it going to hurt Biden's future career prospects?
Yes, that is one point of agreement.
Yep, definitely time for someone to look at themselves in the mirror.
Yeah, you can't actually just rip out brainworms. THat's not how those are treated. This is how they're actually dealt with: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/neurocysticercosis#treatment
Likewise, the way forward here would be to patiently educate someone willing.
I think the way I've summed things up do reflect reality. I did make a mistake (due to having insufficient data) about Dems flipping red, which I've already acknowledged. Actually, Harris is on track to get most of the popular vote that Biden got in 2020, which was one of the highest periods of turnout on record. It's just that voters who sat out 2016 and even 2020 turned out over the economy this year for the GOP, along with important single issue voters in swing states (Latinos over immigration and Arabs/Muslims over Gaza) switching sides.
More data is needed. Importantly the gerrymandering by the GOP that started in 2010 and was blessed by the Supreme Court makes me think that we can't look at 2008 or earlier for precedents. And even comparing to 2012 would be hard since Obama had an incumbency advantage when the plan was still new and not fully implemented.
With limited data, Clinton's more progressive (I said more progressive, not actually progressive) platform in 2016 failed to excite voters, and even more progressive ones failed in the primaries.
This is why I am such a fan of RCV - instead of having to battle it out in the primary, RCV would allow Dems to safely run more progressive candidates side by side with more moderate ones, allowing voters to say which ones they prefer the most without worrying about "electibility" so much (as this means the less electible candidate's votes would go to the other Dem to boost that Dem instead of assuring a GOP win).
Again, look in the mirror.
As this is subjective, no citation needed. However, I'd argue that her change from her 2020 platform does in fact represent she is capable of reflecting and changing - she changed her 2024 platform to reflect the more "electible" platform of Biden that won 2020.
And the result was actually a very close election in the battleground states, as per https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4ve004llxo but as you also pointed out.
That's why I didn't mention them. Agreed overall - the point is that having to campaign for a primary in 2024 would have exposed the faults along with putting "electability" back into the picture. Exactly how this happens is less important than it does indeed happen.
I missed this. Conceded, you're right.
Yeah, the WV loss was basically certain. Although higher hopes were had in Montana, obviously they didn't pan out.
Yup, I remember this being an issue back in 2018 as well. Seeing that Senate terms are for six years, this makes sense. But that gives hope that 2026 will be more like 2020 with Dems barely retaking the Senate. Though that assumes there are still free and fair elections by then.
Agreed.
You'll have to explain this. Based on the other speculative posted I referenced earlier, in terms of the popular vote it seems like Harris will have more than Clinton did in 2016 and only be short by a few million compared to Biden. If you look at EC numbers, Harris had more than Clinton, and the 2016 winner and the 2020 winner won by more than 300, while this year the number fell short of that.
It's definitely a bad&painful result, but I wouldn't call it the worst.
Ah, that makes sense.
The reason it was puzzling is because I had forgotten. It's a personal bias (my inner circle of friends includes Latinos with very liberal families, but this obviously is due to a selection bias and doesn't reflect the grouping in general).
I can give you a longer list if you like, of all the former Republican politicians who have gone on the record for supporting Harris. It's not ridiculous at all. It's fair to say it wasn't enough, but it's more ridiculous to say it was just one person when we know the real number is at least more than an order of magnitude greater.
We're in agreement here.
I have nothing to back this up, but I had a feeling that once Harris was elected, actual action would eventually have been taken. She just couldn't say anything but empty words prior to election day to avoid losing the Jewish bloc - but based on what we now know of the overall vote, it seems like that was a risk she should have taken.
I think the GOP would have had a field day with "before we were merely mitigating the damage" (why didn't you just fix it? maybe because you don't know how?)
That's exactly what Harris tried to do, as per https://www.npr.org/2024/08/09/nx-s1-5055895/harris-is-signaling-her-campaigns-priorities-the-economy-could-be-key-for-voters (fight price gouging, expand child tax credit, encourage more small businesses) and per https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardmcgahey/2024/09/30/harris-opportunity-economy--closes-the-economic-gap-with-trump/ (the opportunity economy).
You'd be right if you said trying to use this was a mistake, but - I feel she was trying to share in the credit for the good numbers on the economy as per https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/harris-inflation-solid-economy-00183210
Voters care more about their own personal finances. If things are more expensive for them, why do they care that the economy's numbers look good? Another thing I think a primary would have prevented.
I think at the time the thinking was being too distant from B would cause two problems. First, why didn't she do anything more as VP? Second, not able to take any credit for the few good things.
No, the number did not fall short of that, it's just that Arizona and Nevada have not been called for Trump yet, but they will be soon. At that point, the electoral map will look exactly the same as 2016 except that Clinton won Nevada, which Kamala is losing. And Clinton won the popular vote while Kamala lost it. So yes, it is pretty objectively a worse result than 2016.
The only thing I was wrong about was that it wasn't just 20 years. We actually have to go all the way back to 1988 to see a result this bad for the democrats, an election where George H.W. Bush won California.
An order of magnitude greater than 1 is 10. That's still completely insignificant, obviously. Individual politicians don't matter unless they draw in constituencies (and don't alienate other constituencies), which did not materialize.
This is essentially a conspiracy theory. It's no different from QAnon people explaining away anything Trump does that they don't like by saying that he had to say it to appease the deep state and get elected, TRUST THE PLAN. It's completely baseless cope and every piece of actual evidence clearly contradicts it.
But even if it were true it doesn't matter in the context of assessing why she lost, because there was no possible way for voters alienated by her public stance to know that she was lying and secretly on their side.
No no no. You cut off major parts of what I said. The only similarity is, "We're going to make the economy better going forward" which every politician ever is going to say.
You do acknowledge the main point afterward though. I think we're in agreement on it being a mistake for her to not distance herself from Biden and not sufficiently acknowledge people's economic problems.
Yep. I think there's still a tiny disagreement here over whether or not Harris could have put enough distance - but we both agree that a primary would have proven it either way and solved the problem with a different candidate if it wasn't possible, so that's perhaps immaterial.
Both Harris and I provided more specific details than that.
Space limits on posting. But actually I agreed on those points and didn't feel the need to respond to them - Harris never said the economy was really and painfully bad outright and never sought distance from Biden.
Agreed, the latest numbers do suggest that if there was split voting, it was in favor of the Dems downballot and orange voldemort rather than the opposite, like we saw in 2020 for Biden.
I was just pointing out that this did draw in some, but as you said it wasn't enough.
Oh, that's right. I spoke too soon - should have waited for the data.
But from your own wikipedia pages, Clinton wont 65,853,514 votes while the estimate at https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229 says "Kamala around 73 million" so Harris objectively did better than Clinton on the popular vote in terms of raw numbers.
So worst case 2024 will still be better than 1988 in terms of EC numbers. Anyways, if I'm reading https://www.politico.com/2024-election/results/president/ it's still too soon to call - the reason being that it's mathematically possible for Harris to still win those two (if she won all the remaining votes left to be counted). So still too soon to tell.
So let me give some quotes here to back this up.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/4/harris-says-will-end-gaza-war-in-final-election-appeal-to-arab-americans
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/kamala-harris-says-two-state-solution-is-the-only-path-after-meeting-with-netanyahu-b2586161.html
Harris didn't have much in terms of actual action, but her position post-Hamas was still for a two-state solution and to put an end to what was happening in Gaza.
The problem is there was no plan for that - but she only had three months to rush a campaign through. So less "TRUST THE PLAN" and more "hope she can figure out a plan once she's in office."
It's not a conspiracy theory because she did actually say these things, but if you'd question if these would end up as broken promises .. it seems that the voters who cared about these things shared your questioning.
Again, it wasn't secret, but was based on the speeches she gave, along with this bit of protestor inspired impromptu: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/harris-appears-to-agree-with-protester-accusing-israel-of-genocide-what-he-s-talking-about-it-s-real/ar-AA1szCVt
Obviously it wasn't enough, but, it wasn't kept as a secret.
Yes, Clinton got fewer total votes in a lower turnout election, but by every other metric the election was less bad than this one was for Harris, whether we look at the EC or votes compared to the other side.
As for Gaza, there is one very simple and straightforward action that Biden could have taken (or still could actually) or that Harris could have said she'll do: place conditions on arms shipments to Israel (or even just stop them entirely). Refusing to do that is a complete endorsement of Israel's actions. Like I said, it's like saying that you disapprove of a mass shooter's actions while handing him another clip. Words and speeches are completely meaningless unless that is addressed, all she ever said was essentially, "Wouldn't it be nice if they could resolve their differences without fighting? But of course I fully support Israel's right to defend itself and will keep arming them unconditionally." There is no indication that she would've been at all willing to take meaningful action.
It used to be the case that politicians would promise to do good things, and then maybe sometimes they'd actually keep their promises. Nowadays they don't even promise anything and people just convince themselves they'll do what they want regardless. Like, even if she had said that she'd stop shipments, sure I would support her, but it would not be entirely unreasonable to question whether she'd follow through. But in the case where she couldn't even say it, the chances of her doing it are basically zero.
No need to rehash what I said above, beyond that I'm still waiting for the data.
Agreed. Now, my understanding is that Harris as VP can't actually do this, that authority runs from Biden down to his cabinet secretaries. But she could have made that promise. It's still not taking action, but maybe it would have been enough.
So minor disagreement here. You say complete, or 100%, while I'd say like 95% or 97%. Perhaps an immaterial difference.
But your proposal above, for Harris, is just more mere words: "Harris could have said"
I think calling for a cease-fire is a mite bit stronger than that, but again perhaps the difference between us is so small as to be immaterial.
Agreed, definitely a problem. No need to rehash about the Jewish voting bloc stuff - we understand why this was done and we saw first hand that it didn't work out. So with 20/20 hindsight...
After Oct 7, 2024, I would too. To say otherwise is an insult to the families of the hostages - telling them that they aren't important enough to protect, that it's okay for this to happen to them again.
On here we completely disagree. "I will stop the Gaza war by any means necessary." seems like a pretty big indication.
Meanwhile,
Source: https://www.commondreams.org/news/netanyahu-trump-cease-fire (link to quote in the "free rein" link on that page)
To be fair, the above is also a really big indication.
That's why I used the word, "unless." If the words are addressing that point, then they're meaningful, but as long as they aren't, they are not.
Does it now? There are lots of ways to stop a war, for example, by destroying the other side's willingness or capability to keep fighting. You know, like Trump said, "finish the job," and then there won't be any more fighting because one side would all be dead. You're choosing to interpret it to mean what you want it to mean, and a supporter of Israel would interpret it to mean what they want it to mean, typical equivocation with no indication of what it actually means in practical terms.
What you don't understand is that politicians are most responsive to voters in the lead-up to an election. After they get elected, then they've already gotten the votes they needed, so they can focus more on lobbyists and corporate donors. That's why there is zero chance that she would've become more pro-Palestinian when in office, because the voters are far more favorable to Palestine than the donors and lobbyists are.
Ah I think I got your meaning now.
Yes.
I assume this is just an example and you aren't seriously suggesting this is what Harris means. Harris has been very clear on the need for an immediate ceasefire.
Well, the alternative meaning doesn't fit with what Harris has said about getting to an immediate ceasefire - you can't have a ceasefire if you're trying to kill every last person on the enemy side. That contradiction makes me think I've interpreted it correctly.
I got that. I figured this was an important constraint on Harris being able to speak in support on Gaza in fact - AIPAC withdrawing their support of her.
This is a good point, AIPAC would still be around after the election.
I think zero chance is too extreme. Consider this,
Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2012/05/obama-expected-to-speak-on-gay-marriage-076103
Also, the goal wasn't necessarily to make Harris pro-Palestine, but simply more anti-genocide. As the situation in Gaza worsens, I could see a possibility where from the grassroots a movement of change, going thru e.g. Sanders and AOC, would eventually convince Harris to evolve her position here as well.
Now, as you point out there are powerful forces that would resist that, but the outcome of that battle would not have been a foregone conclusion.
Quick question, how do you feel about Trump talking about immediately ending the war in Ukraine?
Optimistic. As per https://sopuli.xyz/post/18928087 it seems that "Zelensky was somewhat reassured"
Previously I had thought that this guy would just withdraw all support and hand free reign to Russia, but Zelensky is no fool. If he's feeling it, then I'm very happy indeed to be proven wrong about this point.
Another silver lining - if the US withdraws from NATO, then at least, they can't block Ukraine from joining...
My point is that calling for peace doesn't necessarily mean very much unless there's terms and/or a plan for how to bring people to the table if they don't want to cooperate.
From a personal point of view, I'd still take the promise, provide that I can the person making it as being reliable.
But from a wider point of view, agreed. Perhaps there was something more Harris could have said, earlier, to back up those statements and give this voting bloc a stronger reason to believe in her without causing the Jewish voting bloc to move away from her. Alternatively, maybe the risk of alienating that other bloc with more concrete steps or plans should have been taken - as stepping to hard to avoid alienating them clearly didn't work out.
Could be that they were shut out of the primary process, and wouldn't have chosen Harris.
This would make more sense if they just sat it out and didn't vote (or say voted third party).
But this doesn't make sense if they switched parties and voted for orange voldemort. All the reasons not to choose Harris (such as not being strong enough on Gaza) would apply even more strongly to that guy..
That's exactly what happened. Trump's turnout was about the same, but Dems turnout was 15 million less than 2020. That shows not that people are going more right ward and voting for Trump, but that Dems turnout was depressed due to apathy or something else.
Oh, interesting. Do you have a source regarding the turnout? What I've been reading elsewhere suggests that turnout wasn't depressed except compared to 2020 - which may have been a fluke due to the pandemic - but the sources I have (such as https://dailyiowan.com/2024/11/06/2024-election-reaches-second-highest-voter-turnout-in-the-past-century/ ) aren't clear on hard numbers or stats.
A different commenter on this thread (see https://lemmy.world/comment/13325248 ) claims that orange voldemort actually got fewer votes in this election than in 2020. No source was provided and I'm a bit skeptical, but if you both are right (contradicting the sources I have pointed to in my other comments) then it suggests a) that there was no such shift and it was merely a turnout issue and b) that more leftist or progressive policies might do the trick!
Which are much easier problems to solve than to deal with folks actually moving their beliefs and votes to the right.
I think you're right that turnout in 2020 was kind of an anomaly from being higher than normal. The stats I found, and this is just what I am seeing referenced so I'll keep trying to find a source, is that Trump had 4 million less than 2020 but Democrats had 15 million less. So a general depression of turnout but way more from the Democrat's camp than Trump's.
But either way, if people are moving right, I think they can also be moved to the left, too. I tend to think that it happens when current times are bad, than they stop wanting to move forward and they look for scapegoats. We just need a more equitable economy that works for everyone, and not just the rich.
There's a really good repost at https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229 which shows that actually turnout was higher where it mattered almost across the board, though alas it also doesn't cite a reference or source for the numbers. (Remember though that even an extra 81 million votes for Harris in California wouldn't have made a difference in the EC, but split 15 million Dem votes evenly across the seven swing states, and Harris would have won.)
This suggests that there wasn't much of a depression of turnout - perhaps only in the safe blue states, which wouldn't have been impactful.
Of course that's based on an estimate, or guess, on how the total popular vote count will turn out, which is still unknown. We'll see, I guess.
You're right about being able to get voters to switch back to blue. But that's what puzzles me - why did they switch from blue to red in the first place?
But actually you answered this already - it's the age old "it's the economy, stupid." Maybe this was unavoidable then? Biden and his Dem replacement would have always taken the hit on the economy no matter what. The only one eligible to run who might have been able to avoid that stain would have been Sanders.
Oh, right I forgot that the presidential race was the only thing on the ballot in the generals, and that there weren't primary elections for every position, including president, in multiple parties.
Except of course that's not true, and they didn't participate in any of that, and thus no one cares what they say. If they cared, they would have voted for someone else in the primaries. They didn't so that means one of two things. They assumed Biden would win and were happy about it. Or they assumed he would win and couldn't be bothered to do anything about it. So if they don't like it, who cares what they think? They're not going to do anything about it, so why appease them?
Instead, they're going to whine on the Internet about how they were "shut out" of something that was completely open to them, and pretend like it's the world's fault, and can safely be ignored.
I've read that comment a few tims now. I genuinely can't follow what you're talking about.
Calm down. Come back, and try again.
I am registered unaffiliated because I'm left of our Democratic party, not right of it. I can't be the only one. So some of those independents are progressive.
So I think being a more-left independent is fine (though I'd personally want to stay registered as a Dem just so I would have a chance at voting for the most left Dem candidate in primaries).
But could any of these folks such as yourself have voted Red on the big day? And if so, why??
I totally understand Harris not being the ideal candidate for such voters, but to vote Red instead? How is that an improvement?
I cannot imagine that. The people I know who voted for Trump are either victims of the right wing media bubble, or worried about very specific individual issues - one about guns, one about gas prices, plus I think low information voters who have short memories, I heard a lady on the radio saying "he's a businessman and I am an entrepreneur, I think he will be more friendly to business".
Here, the leftmost are mostly better informed, I think.
Actually I'm starting to move against this view as well. https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229 shows that turnout was even higher than in 2020 (though still waiting on sources for those numbers, which in any case are estimates and not the final count)
Rather than Dems majorly sitting it out or switching sides, it is actually starting to look like all the GOP folks who sat home in 2016 and 2020 finally decided to turn out for orange voldemort. I wonder why though... I guess, they finally thought the economy had become bad enough to punish the status quo leaders.
Yeah, I agree. People think of parties as these static things, but parties are made of people, and the people in the parties change all the time. Republicans freed the slaves and gave women the right to vote. Those aren't the people in the party today.
The Democratic party is going to take on the former GOP people. It won't be a huge shift, but it will shift. The people that voted for people like Cheney are going to become Democrats. The people that were in the Democratic party are going to get pushed to the edges. Because no one votes for them. These petulent children complain that the candidates are not perfect, and didn't "earn it", and "if they're not perfect, then I'm just not going to play the game at all".
It's a lot of talk, and zero action with these people: all excuses - money influences politicians, we don't have a choice.... Two of the questions on my ballot were initiatives, just straight up votes that would directly change how the government is run here - no politicians, no money trail, you just vote on it and the law changes. It's utter bullshit pretending this is a waste of time, and it's everyone else's fault. They sound like a bunch of little piss babies crying in their milk.
The relationship between slavery, women's suffrage, and the Republican party is a little more complicated than that. People fought to end slavery and people fought for women's suffrage.
And it's a similar story with the civil rights movement, Democrats didn't give anybody anything. People demonstrated and organized for their rights. Likewise for workers' rights during the Great depression.
Though I agree with your point, parties do change and nothing is static. But it's pressure that changes them. And with left activism basically dead in our country right now, it's election financing that mostly calls the shots.
Yeah, pressure from voters. Not voting isn't pressure. Don't vote, dont care. Half the country doesn't vote. Financing is bad, but you can't act like it's so bad that 150 million votes couldn't overcome it. And certainly you can't act like 150 million absolutely nothing has any chance of overcoming it.
Financing from corporations affects voter turnout. People are tired of the duopoly. Look at Bernie's campaign in the 2016 primaries compared to Kamala's. It also causes right wing drift in the Democratic Party. Which doesn't get people excited to vote for them.
And the ballot box is dead for the next two years, possibly much longer. Our only hope is the filibuster and left organizing (strikes, protests, marches, etc.)
Shaming people for not voting on the internet isn't going to help anyone. And it's not going to slow our descent into fascism.
We need collective action and direct pressure. And courage. Because the authoritarian regime is likely to counter with state terrorism. And blood is likely to spill.
In any sane system without FPTP and with RCV or similar, though, those who got pushed out could easily form a new party. I could easily see one lead by Sanders and AOC.
But under the system we've currently got, they're both pushing voters for Harris instead. Because there's not really any other choice. They're right, but so are you. There's no place left for folks like us - we'll hold our noses and stick with the Dems because they're the least bad option, but so many transformative ideas are going to languish.
I was hoping that this was just because of the EC and gerrymandering - that the issue was structural and thus the votes that counted didn't accurately reflect what the country as a whole wanted. Meaning we could fix this by fixing the structure (e.g. abolishing the EC). New data however, suggests there is a real rightward and rightwing shift in this country, which is really painful to process.
I agree. This is eye opening, not just the support for a felon, but also the huge number of people who do nothing when given multiple opportunities to do something. I don't want to help people whose idea of action is complaining on the Internet about how they can't do anything, and sitting at home during primaries and general elections.