politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Wasn't the uncommitted movement some 100,000 people strong?
Didn't Harris lose by millions?
How would have the uncommitteds saved the election if their numbers represented a fraction of what Democrats needed?
Could a more likely explanation of this deplorable outcome be that Democrats did this to themselves by not rallying up their base enough to bring more people out to vote?
Stop blaming the American people.
Almost 100,000 in Michigan alone likely flipped the swing state.
https://theconversation.com/voters-in-arab-american-strongholds-likely-tipped-michigan-in-trumps-favor-242854
Looks like Harris did lose by about 79,000 votes in Michigan.
Comparatively, about 44,500 went to Stein.
We don't ultimately know how the uncommitted movement voted. If they were a monolith throughout, we'd expect 100k for Stein. If some abstained and some voted for Harris or Trump, that would've split the movement.
If all of Stein's voters went to Harris, however, that wouldn't have changed the outcome. Harris would have still been short ~34,400. So if you wanted to make the argument that the uncommitted movement was a voting block, then the entire ~44k block voting for Harris wouldn't have changed the outcome.
Overall I don't see Michigan outcomes changing my argument. If Dems were more persuasive, even if they lied about Gaza, they could have sweeped the nation. And even if the uncommitteds chose the lesser of two evils, Kamala still lost all other swing states. You can't chock the outcomes of those states up to the uncommitteds, because the largest organizational presence was in Michigan.
They would have been enough to secure the swing states and win Harris the electorial college. Her campaign would have need to promote more progressive policies that addresses the material needs of Americans, instead of running to the right on issues, in order to also pick up the popular vote.
100% It's entirely on the campaign to secure votes. That's the entire job of the campaign. Blaming voters is an easy scapegoat that accomplishes nothing. And when it's blaming marginalized groups, it seems like it's only promoting hate against the people most vulnerable to the violence of fascism