• Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    Once again, they are only looking at the people who DID vote… Those people always vote, and clearly the proportion of blue “always voters” is dwindling compared to red “always voters”. Yes ignorant voters lean red, but it doesn’t matter. Stop pretending like there’s a huge swath of “swing” voters. There’s not. Trump got basically the same votes this time. This election came down to the 10 million Biden voters who stayed home for Kamala. That’s it. All the rest of this is nonsense bullshit propaganda to obscure the truth. Why didn’t they come out for Kamala??

    • MisterScruffy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      They only “came out” for Biden because of covid and because trump was in power during covid and people were angry about how he handled it and there were a lot of mail in ballots.

      Without the covid effect I really doubt Biden woulda won in 2020

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      2 days ago
      1. Because she’s a woman
      2. The DNC failed to remind people what happened under Trump (Which is how Trump got away with “Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?”
      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        To add to that, in 2020 we had almost universal mail voting that had been rolled back in most swing states by 2024. In addition, there were a lot of scary stories floating around about Trump supporters at the polls. Lastly, voter suppression efforts do suppress votes (e.g. removing people from voter rolls, closing polling places in blue districts, making voting worse).

        • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Fun fact, the DNC started all of these things in 2016 when they did them all to Bernie and his supporters. The RNC simply learned from their playbook.

          But I can agree, some of the people who didn’t vote may have been influenced by it being harder to vote this time.

      • 7toed@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 days ago
        1. Less vocal on support for trans rights than Biden in his campaign and first days of presidency despite literal millions being poured into anti trans ads.
        2. Yes, the whole genocide thing, like talking about it or not, Michigan for example certainly lost a huge blue voting block just by the more predominantly Arab districts alone. Michigan, red. And nobody was thinking trump was the better option there, they just did not feel the need to participate
        3. They only mentioned how grave a threat a fascist who has openly talked about subverting democracy, and then were more than cordial when it came to a loss. The DNC didnt fail to mention, its that its not worth shit because trump is still a free man and our laws should have upheld those principles. You can remind people how presumeably bad it was, but it doesnt mean anything if youre not offering a clear better alternative while our system of laws is literally failing us.

        God forbid Biden were to have run again, it would’ve still been a landslide, and he aint a woman. Maybe old as shit, but there is still a lot more common issues people grew to not like so much about Biden, then Kamala said she wouldnt be any different from.

        I dump this comment because I personally believe reductive narrative will hurt our ability to effectively work together, and probably the biggest part the dems failed.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          2 days ago

          the whole genocide thing

          No informed voter thought Trump would be better for Palestine than Kamala. Remember, people say one thing publicly when their private reasons are actually less popular.

          The conservative Muslims who claimed they loved Palestine voted for Republicans because they are conservative. They are using the Palestinian people as political pawns, just like Hamas. They share conservative values with Republicans based on cultural issues. They differ on the justification for it, but they are all supporters of hierarchy. Same with conservative Latinos.

          It’s not popular to say “I like hierarchy and I want to be on top”. Many supporters of hierarchy claim they love “individual rights” when they really want privileges for themselves. That’s the reason why some people love the “Bill of Rights” but hate equality.

          • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            We’re not talking about the people who DID vote. It’s the people who didn’t vote who mattered in this election. Specifically the ones who voted last time but not this time. And many of the ones who didn’t vote, made it clear they COULDN’T bring themselves to vote for genocide, and being given no option to not vote for genocide, their only choice was to sit it out. It was a moral decision.

          • 7toed@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            No informed voter thought Trump would be better for Palestine than Kamala

            That doesn’t change the dems abetting a regime currently committing a genocide. Don’t forget over half the nation doesn’t vote. It was never about changing already fixed or the elusive swing voters minds, it was about getting people out. Its a little harder to when the voter is aware of a moral conflict regarding their vote, regardless of your percieved political intentions of theirs. Are you doubting a significant amount of voters abstained? Because theres gotta be some reason trump had basically the same turnout while dems lost significantly.

            It’s not popular to say “I like hierarchy and I want to be on top”. Many supporters of hierarchy claim they love “individual rights” when they really want privileges for themselves. That’s the reason why some people love the “Bill of Rights” but hate equality.

            I don’t understand your point, is this in relation to conservative arabs?

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              Because theres gotta be some reason trump had basically the same turnout while dems lost significantly.

              I made this point elsewhere but it was also far easier to vote in 2020 (in swing states especially).

              • 7toed@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 days ago

                That is true as well. My state still had mail in so personally I found it no more easier or difficult. Pardon for being shouldacouldawoulda, but in that case vote accessiblilty should’ve been a top priority for the dems after all of the 2020 bs.

                In my humble opinion it was no larger a part than any other potential matter. I mean we’re still counting and it has inched closer… nowhere to hope, but I genuinely believe if everyone turned out to vote, we wouldnt have to worry this stuff so much

                • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  Pardon for being shouldacouldawoulda, but in that case vote accessiblilty should’ve been a top priority for the dems after all of the 2020 bs.

                  I think this really should be their goal, and they should trade things to get there. Like, who cares about needing an ID to vote, if you can use voter ID as leverage to get free national ID cards for everyone? (I’m not saying you can, but try?) Exchange president’s day as a holiday for election day…make voting access an actual priority.

            • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              2 days ago

              My point is, most people don’t actually care about Palestine enough to sway their votes. Same with most genocides. People don’t like them but think other issues are more important. People care about issues that affect them directly. If they’re not voting, it means they don’t think a decision will affect them (rightly or wrongly).

              Conservative Muslims (not Arabs, they’re different) mention Palestine as a distraction. They were always going to vote Republican because they are conservative and have conservative values.

              • MellowYellow13@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                Yes they do, and the votes speak for themselves. How is anything more important then genocide? Your comment is racist and disgusting.

              • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                8.6% of Biden voters didn’t show up for Kamala. That’s hardly “most”… In fact it seems like a pretty reasonable percent of the left who might actually care more about the morality of their vote than any other concern. Those are the people we’re talking about.

              • 7toed@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                [Demographic] is always going to ____ because they are ___ and have ___ values.

                So, fill in the blanks with the most abhorent shit you can garner, I’ve got to listen to some nice vitriol myself. You see why generalization, is very much a slippery slope?

                If you ever care to be a voice of reason and possibly convince people to vote in their own best interest despite being inundated with propaganda against so, then you will learn something from this.

          • lemmingthelemmers@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            “They are using the Palestinian people as political pawns, just like Hamas.”

            Sir, with all due respect I don’t think you understand what you are talking about regarding Hamas.

            Also no informed voter would actually believe Kamala to be better than Trump is maybe what you meant to say?

            The Biden-Harris administration has already rubber stamped the annihilation of the Palestinian people. Every red line was blown through and no significant consequences except them bypassing congress to send more weapons to Israel every few weeks. The worst administration for the Palestinian people all-time is Genocide Joe and Holocaust Harris.

            Why does anyone on Earth think she would change from that position when time and time again she preached her allegiance to Israel and no change in policy from Biden?

            Do people listen to the shit she says?

            And for all the bluemaga soldiers coming to tell me she said talked about a ceasefire - she was also once a proponent of medicare for all and an opponent of fracking. How did those lies work out?

        • SquatDingloid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          2 days ago

          It’s not reductive to acknowledge that we have a sexism problem.

          When mostly white and hispanic men voted for Biden but not Harris then it’s hard to pretend like that has to do with the economy or some other shit.

          Biden and Harris have the exact same policies, white and hispanic men voted for Biden but stayed home for Harris, logically you have to accept it was about being a woman.

          • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            Have you seen a demographics poll of the 7 million Biden voters who stayed home? I’ve been looking. If you found one can you share it please? Thanks

          • 7toed@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I believe I conceded that some voters may have had sexism play a part, but being cynical and avoiding crtitique wont get the party anywhere. Its really easy to just say shit, but coming up with solutions is harder. So if its just sexism, I’d like to hear your 5 step plan to mend this qualm.

            Biden and Harris have the exact same policies

            Maybe that was part of the issue, when voters want change, how is that supposed to help?

            • SquatDingloid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              Let’s be real if they had progressive policies they wouldn’t be the Democratic party anymore

              But if people actually gave a shit about policy then they would have voted for Bernie in 2016, and we all know how electable he was

              You can’t pretend that people suddenly care about policy because they never fucking have

              This was sexism plain and simple

              A bunch of man children got a small pp and stayed home when they realized that a woman may outrank them

              • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 day ago

                Millions of people did vote for Bernie, and he absolutely would have won the general… Clinton and her minions rigged the primary. The right doesn’t care about policy, but the left, especially the moral “Bernie” left absolutely care about policy. The sexists who can’t bring themselves vote for a woman are right-wing voters and always have been. The idea that the left is filled with blatant sexists is delusional.

              • 7toed@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Okay and again, how does this solve anything? People dont have to care about policy to know they don’t want more of the same. I get why you’re frustrated, but you can’t think you know this reason when I don’t even fully, but at the very least try not to be reductionist? Because it actively sabotages any progress to constantly infight on demographic blame.

                I just noticed each of my notifications have been yours in order, I dont know if you want to prove your reasoning or are just here to argue, but I suggest you actually read about half of what Ive said if you genuinely care why reason lost this election.

          • MellowYellow13@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Wrong about mostly everything. Sexism is a part of it, but way smaller than you think it is. Kamala is not popular at all, and the dems are a dying party in their unilateral support of Israel and genocide.

            Kamala had the worst speeches and the most disgusting conversations with people during Q&As. She was never going to win. She has no spine and doesn’t stand for anything, the biggest puppet we’ve ever seen.

      • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’m sorry, but the idea that 10 million people on the left chose not to vote for someone just because she’s a woman is ridiculous. People who think like that are Republicans and would never have voted blue no matter what.

        I’m pretty sure the DNCs entire strategy was making sure people knew they were better than Trump. But okay, I’ll give you that one of their failings was not leaning into all the horrible things Trump did or allowed.

      • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Sorry buddy, you don’t get to hand waive away yet another failure. This is on the democratic party.

        Time to make that change obama promised a reality. Can they rip their lips off their donors butthole? Doubtful

      • MellowYellow13@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        The because she’s a woman is major league copium, and if you choose to believe this then you got serious issues.

      • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        Everybody who was voting age was old enough to remember the trauma of 2016-2020 without reminders. Yes the dems should leverage everything anyway, but even the non-politically-aware have it in working recent memory. We can take that out of the list of causes.

        • nwtreeoctopus@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          They should remember without reminders, but do they? The number of people who only seem to remember cheap gas is appalling.

    • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      2 days ago

      The missing 10 million Biden voters is a silly talking point, leads to entitled questions, and reaching infantile and politically impotent conclusions. Are you so dense that you don’t know how electoral college works?

      • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’m sure we could break it down by state… But the missing voters is THE thing that swung this election. Figuring out the true reason those people sat this one out should be everyone’s top priority.

          • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 hours ago

            Georgia: Biden won by 11,779, Kamala lost by 115,100= -126,879 difference … Trump 2020 2,461,854 vs 2024 2,663,117= +201,263… So Biden no shows wouldn’t have changed this one (assuming they stayed home and didn’t vote for Trump)… If they did go vote for Trump then only 74,384 were actual no shows, also wouldn’t have made a difference.

            North Carolina: Biden lost by 74,483, Kamala lost by 183,048= -105,565 difference… Trump 2020 2,758,775 vs 2024 2,898,428 = +139,653 So Biden no shows wouldn’t have changed this one (assuming they stayed home and didn’t vote for Trump)… If they did go vote for Trump then only 34,088 were actual no shows, also wouldn’t have made a difference.

            Michigan: Biden won by 154,188, Kamala lost by 80,618= -234,806 difference… Trump 2020 vs 2024= +154,795= So Biden no shows would have changed this one (assuming they stayed home and didn’t vote for Trump)… If they did go vote for Trump then only 80,011 were actual no shows, also wouldn’t have made a difference.

            Alright, I concede… In only some of the swing states would the Biden no shows have changed the results. The electoral college is garbage.

            I think finding out whether the Biden no shows actually stayed home or went out to vote for Trump is important. And the people that definitely stayed home, why?

            Either way, Dems should stop trying to court the right who might swing Dem one election but then swing maga the next… Court the left, at least they’ll only swing between showing up or not showing up. As much as libs like to say not voting= voting for Trump, it’s far less of a vote for Trump than an ACTUAL vote for Trump.

  • adarza@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    144
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    lost the ones more easily duped by soundbites of lies.

    “I love the poorly educated!” -Trump, 2/2016

    • Tinidril@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      3 days ago

      It’s too bad she didn’t offer any soundbites of truth. Her entire campaign was built around being inoffensive to everyone which meant saying nothing that might evoke meaning. Lies thrive in that environment.

        • Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          I’m easily the most politically engaged person I know. If I wasn’t listening (though I was) then that’s a really bad sign. We need candidates that drive engagement.

          Kamala had a lot going in terms of technocratic improvements that actually would provide some value for voters, but there was nothing transformative, and there was no interesting narrative.

          The most interesting thing she did was campaign with Liz Cheney, so that’s what got the attention. She wanted to convince right leaning voters that she understood them, but instead communicated that she is just another neoliberal warmonger. It doesn’t matter that she might have threaded the needle perfectly in her rhetoric because she stepped into a narrative that said otherwise.

          • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            You taking heat for your previous statement is so typical of those giving any criticism of the DNC. You basically went outside and said it’s kinda chilly and someone came up and said, upset, “no! It’s cold.”

  • NeoToasty@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    I have spoken to two kinds of voters.

    First off, was my dad. He never ever voted in his life. This was his first year of voting and he went Harris. Simply because he knew enough of what she was about and liked her character.

    Meanwhile, the other party was my formerly adoptive mother. She voted Trump because “I just don’t like the other party”. That was her only reason. And that was just simply dishonest and uneducated.

    So, it is possible that someone is capable of just even doing the tiniest research can give you an idea of who to vote for.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    3 days ago

    No, SHE didn’t.

    Corporate News Fucked Up Again.

    For some reason all the headlines about this seem to be about what the DNC or the Harris campaign should have done.

    • Tinidril@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      Democrats ran another perfect losing campaign. Some people might say that losing makes a campaign definitionally imperfect, but that’s only sane people.

        • Tinidril@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          She lost to a carnival barker. Other than that, the campaign was perfect! Great news for the Democrats because they have the perfect formulae. (/s in case you missed it.)

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            2 days ago

            It’s that kind of incisive political analyses that make all the “lolDemz” leftist commentary worthwhile. Thank you for your service. /s

            • Tinidril@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              Why the fuck would anyone respond to the comments you made here with any real analysis? If that’s what you wanted than you’re as tone deaf as Harris.

    • seaQueue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      3 days ago

      This is what happens when you sell all of the major news outlets to billionaires - they publish pro billionaire propaganda

    • very_well_lost@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      I don’t think it’s fair to just dump all the blame on corporate media. The news media landscape hasn’t meaningfully changed since Trump was first elected, but despite having 8 years to formulate a sound media strategy the DNC is still campaigning like it’s 2015.

      Like, sure, the Democrats are running with a handicap in the current media landscape, but that isn’t new, and it’s the responsibility of the DNC to figure out how to overcome that disadvantage — a task that the current leadership has proven itself woefully incompetent at.

      • lobut@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Yeah but like, it’s a bit crazy that the right has: Fox News, OAN, NewsMax (or whatever it’s called), Joe Rogan Experience (gateway drug/sanewashing), Benny Shaps network, X, Truth Social, Prager U, Tim’s Pool, right wing radio, and lots of other smaller shops and they all seem to claim corporate media is the worst and they’re all here to tell you the truth.

        • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          They could start by shedding any hope of capturing those voters. I can tell you with 100% certainty, based on trump being a convicted felon, there is no attack that will flip them. You have to reach outside current demos and bring your message to them. If they can’t learn this obvious fact thats been lingering for 8 years (shoot someone on mainstreet) they are useless as a political power.

          Next is the message. Obviously it has to be about change. Where Harris again failed by clinging to bidens record. The DNC needed to drop current dogmas and level. They would have started by talking like a normal fucking human who doesnt have a scripted line and strategy for everything. Then they would lay out the facts. This is what ‘government can do’ and this is what ‘government can’t do’. This is what YOU the voters need to do to get governement to do what YOU want. Then address what they want! FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE. THEN LAY THEM WITH THE FUCKING PEOPLES ELBOW. “THE PEOPLE HAVE TO BLOW UP THE POLLS TO GET THE FREEDOM OF FINCIAL INDEPENDENCE, IF THERE ISNT COMPLETE HEDGEMONY IN ALL BRANCHES OF GOVERNEMNT THERE WILL NEVER BE MEANINGUFL CHANGE.”

          Promise fincaial independence, promise people will never get it if they don’t show. Then we either got as far as the line, “I own a gun” or the people show up. Either way, you ran an honest, noble campaign.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Yes. Add to that that they have no ethics, and will say and do anything.

          People on the left tend to actually adhere to their moral and ethical framework, which immediately puts us at a massive disadvantage against the dirty cheaters.

        • orclev@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          3 days ago

          Don’t forget Sinclair Broadcasting. They’re the local branch of the right wing propaganda machine.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          What’s crazier is when WB bought CNN and literally said Faux News was the plan for what they wanted to do, and loads of journalists resigned from CNN over the changes…

          People still think any media organization owned by billionaires has a chance to be “on the left”.

          If a billionaire (or group of billionaires) own a media company, it’s only to manipulate people into blaming anyone except billionaires for the current state of affairs.

          Like, it’s great you’re realizing it now…

          But the merger was two years ago…

          https://www.vox.com/2022/8/26/23322761/cnn-john-malone-david-zaslav-chris-licht-brian-stelter-fox-peter-kafka-column

          None of this was done in the shadows, they came right out and said it. Publicly and repeatedly.

          What you want to happen is happening. The Dems are getting their own versions of that shit.

          The problem is they’re getting it for the same reason: to trick us into voting against our own interests.

          • Omega@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            What you want to happen is happening. The Dems are getting their own versions of that shit.

            The news could literally just use the same standards for both political parties and treat significant news with the stress it deserves regardless of parties and they would already look like left-wing lunatics.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        The news media landscape hasn’t meaningfully changed since Trump was first elected

        I think that’s the heart of the issue. Yes, DNC should have figured out away around all corporate media outlets but that’s an enormous, unbelievable ask.

        Yes, the DNC should be mobile, and memeable, and . . . fuck, I dunno - on 3.14chan or whatever, but at the end of the day they still have to rely on the fucking Today Show and NBC Nightly News and the motherfucking New York Times to carry their message without shitting on it - which they absolutely will. never. do.

        The right has poured hundreds of billions into this since the mid-90s. The left has no fucking clue. Despite having all the academics and content creators telling them what to do. It’s time to put a fist in the face of corporate news. Sweet talking has gotten us a fascist dictator.

        • emax_gomax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          I mean… bernies doing it. Dude is like 80 and is absolutely idolised by the younger generation and regular middle and lower class people because he seems to actually practice what he preaches and is genuinely interested in what’s good for people. Most politicians to me just give the impression of seeking politics to enrich themselves and clasping onto power to avoid losing that even when their senile and completely incapable of fulfilling their role.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      For some reason all the headlines about this seem to be about what the DNC or the Harris campaign should have done.

      Wait…

      You’re surprised people are blaming the candidate that lost and her campaign team that was paid millions of dollars and spent over a billion and still couldn’t beat trump?

      Why?

      What is the logic where the people whose literal job was to win the election, aren’t at fault for losing the election?

      And I’m scared to even ask, but:

      Since you think they’re blameless, does that mean you really want us to do the same shit in four years again and hope this time screaming at people will be effective?

      Cuz buddy, it’s never been effective at anything besides letting some shitty republican into the Oval

    • mlg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      Poor soul thinks said corporate media somehow exists completely outside of the scope of the DNC as if the DNC itself isn’t just a convention for corporate donors to show up and throw in their demands in exchange for campaign funds and lobbying money.

      I mean I’m sure the headline NYT article about Clinton having a 91% chance of winning was totally some next level corporate funded psyop and not a one of the many thousands of advertisements paid for by the DNC. /s

      No, it’s totally the corporate media that’s after her and has absolutely nothing to do with the candidate that dropped the entire uncommitted movement worth of constituents for $100 mil in corporate AIPAC money. /s

        • mlg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          In presidential elections, it supervises the national convention and, both independently and in coordination with the presidential candidate, raises funds, commissions polls, and coordinates campaign strategy.

          Again there is just no possible way the DNC is financially related to the very candidate it is promoting. Obviously, the Wikipedia editors are wrong /s

          • btaf45@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Again there is just no possible way the DNC is financially related to the very candidate it is promoting.

            Actually the Harris campaign gave money to the DNC (or some other fund) to help fund other candidates, not the other way around. That didn’t give the DNC the slightest bit of leverage over Harris. If anything it was the opposite. The suggestion that someone at the DNC ran the Harris campaign instead of Harris is ludicrous.

          • Restaldt@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            3 days ago

            Mostly the anger at having to pick a slightly less lethal poison election after election

            The DNC went full mask off this year by not holding primaries. By campaining with the cheneys and pushing 10 year old GOP policies/talking points.

            All they will learn from this is losing elections still lets you amass a “warchest” of one billion dollars

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              The last president – Obama – that the DNC really wasn’t at all involved with was still somehow not very progressive.

              • btaf45@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                The DNC has equal “involvement” in every election, which is to hold primary elections so voters can choose a nominee. The nominees chosen by the voters all run their own campaigns.

            • btaf45@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              Harris is not the DNC. The DNC is not a person. The DNC did not “campaign with they Cheneys”. The DNC did not “push 10 year old GOP politicies.” Nor did Harris, to my knowledge.

              The only job of the DNC was to hold primaries. And they did that. Biden dropped out after the primaries were over.

              All they will learn from this is losing elections still lets you amass a “warchest” of one billion dollars

              The DNC’s only main job is to hold primaries. It’s not up to them to “learn” anything. They always go with the choice of the voters. The only people who can learn anything from this is the voters. The DNC is not a person. It is an fluid organization controlled by the primary voters.

            • capital@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              lol. Slightly.

              I’ll remember this thread when abortions are banned nationwide.

    • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      Corporate news is not the guardrails of democracy. Ultimately, the people are responsible.

      • Tinidril@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Will we be nominating better voters next election, or should we try to nominate a better candidate?

        • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Who’s “we”? Democrats? Leftists? I voted against Biden in both primaries (because this outcome from a shitlib was inevitable) but there were not a lot of good alternatives in 2024.

          • Tinidril@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            I keep hearing Jon Stewart thrown out there, but I’d be shocked if he could be convinced to run. He is definitely the template for what we need.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          There will never be another fair and free presidential election in this country if Trump and his clownshow are allowed to take power.

      • KaTaRaNaGa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Ok, what does that actually mean when you apply the sound bite to reality? What are your specific expectations for “the people” as individuals?

  • WingedObsidian@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Can’t forget when I overheard someone say, “when was Biden is not running for president” as Trumps was announced he was president elect…

    Democracy dies in ignorance

  • Letsdothis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    lost voters who don’t follow politics.

    This could imply that they started following politics and then decided not to vote democrat.

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    3 days ago

    Honestly I thought it was really stupid to hear Trump going after “low propensity voters” as if Kamala wasn’t.

    To me, politically engaged people by nature will vote so why the fuck wouldn’t you be trying to reach those that don’t pay much attention? Like ffs if these people can’t be their own advocates how could we expect them to run the damn country… Very very stupid. :(

    • AngryRobot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 days ago

      The problem is that ots much easier to get people enraged than it is to get them to show understanding. The reds only talk about hate, and that’s very hard to combat. It’s been their strategy my entire adult life, and I’m 51. It’s culture war propaganda.

      What we need are Podcaster and other influences to rail against billionaires and their crimes.

      • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        So? get them enraged at the ass fucking corporate america is giving them? problem solved.

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    “Politically engaged” in completely disgusting politics is not a positive thing.

    The hegemonic narrative (eg. nbc) will never prevent this viewpoint.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    2 days ago

    They saw a woman was running for President and decided they didn’t care. It’s as simple as that. Sexism gave the election to Trump

    • 7toed@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      We can point fingers at demographics, and certainly that may have been a part, but its reductive to say just sexism. If we accept any single reason, there will be no reason to improve our platforms.

      You’ve got Democratic leaning media blaming the dems for being too woke… and more than half the country just didn’t vote. We need a platform that argues in favor of worker and individual rights alike while not capitulating on either, because as soon as you do capitulate to the right, you lose support, plain and simple.

      • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        These people are throwing as much shit at the wall desperately to find anything to blame other then the Democratic Party. Perhaps it is a coping mechanism because the democrats would rather cling to First-past-the-post voting with rigor mortis clenched hands then to have to actually compete for your vote.

        A trump presidency over breaking the two party system.

        Party over country.

        • 7toed@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          I understand to the kneejerk reactions to critique of the dems, but ffs this should be easy to win and who else do you critique then? Actually bring some change to the table and people will perk up to it. They’ve just let the repubs define them instead of doing anything to even make a name for themselves. At this rate I don’t think we’ll ever get ranked choice, unfortunately. Won’t stop me from trying.

      • SquatDingloid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        When the only voters who sat out were white and hispanic men then what would be the logical reason?

        Why didn’t women sit out this election at the same rates? Why not any other groups besides white and hispanic men?

        What other conclusions can you even draw for these specific groups that have masculinity issues than not voting for a woman?

      • BadmanDan@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Latinos shift to Trump won him the election. Harris had the white and black support she needed

        • 7toed@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          We cant split hairs on demographic turnout if overall turnout is way down from 2020, I mean we can make Latinos a scapegoat, but again we’re completely subverting critique that could actually help win an election.

            • 7toed@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              The fact is those margins in the Hispanic community would barely make a dent on overall turnout? Hence, scapegoating.

              • SquatDingloid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                2 days ago

                If every white and hispanic man who voted for biden also voted for harris then she would have won

                Acknowledging reality is not scapegoating

                • 7toed@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  7,000,000 less votes than Biden has is beyond any single percent margin in minority populations. Even if… what are you going to do? Harp on said demographics foe making the wrong choice for 4 years? Self righteousness ain’t gonna solve the lost vote. Ask why things happen once in a while.

    • Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      53% of white women voted for Trump. Your “America won’t vote for a woman” argument doesn’t hold water.

      Americans won’t vote for specific women, sure. Namely Hillary Clinton, and Kamala Harris. The fact that they are women is not why they lost so cataclysmically; they ran platforms that were deeply unengaging to Democrat and Independent voters. Worse, they tried to appeal to Republicans, which only underscored how out-of-touch and unprepared they were to hold the office. Moreover, neither of those specific women, nor the DNC that backed them seems to have learned anything from their continual failures, which, again, only deepens the divide among Democrats’ necessary coalitions.

      Their failures are a function of being bad at post-Obama politics, and bad at running for the highest office in the land. It’s not because they are women.

    • bradd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Nah, had Tulsi stayed with Democrats, and ran against Trump I would have voted for Tulsi. Instead, Tulsi joined Trump, and I voted for Trump. If Tulsi runs again, I’ll vote for Tulsi.

      Just watch this (again), there’s Joe, Kamala, and Tulsi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4fjA0K2EeE

  • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m politically engaged. She lost me and loads of others when she said shes a Zionist and supports destroying the environment.

    • TwentySeven@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      How old are you? The idea that you’re not going to vote unless you agree with a candidate on 100% of issues seems pretty unrealistic.

      I have never in my life voted for a candidate that I completely agree with. And the ones I liked most tended not to do very well, because my opinions are not representative of the population at large.

      If you’re waiting until you can find a candidate who has zero positions you don’t like, you’ll be waiting until you’re dead. Good job participating in democracy!

    • nutsack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      the palestinians thank you for not voting they think it was really smart and brave