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
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.