this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
263 points (89.0% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4132 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 71 points 1 day ago (23 children)

Kamala Harris truly is Hillary Clinton 2.0.

Many of Harris’s mistakes were similar to those Hillary Clinton made in 2016. Like Clinton, Harris cozied up to billionaire donors. Mark Cuban, for instance, said he was delighted that Harris was abandoning Democrats’ commitments to progressive principles and letting the business community propose the policies it wanted. Like Clinton, Harris and Tim Walz made hubristic campaign stops in solidly red states like Texas and Kentucky rather than spending the final days laser-focused on crucial battlegrounds. Like Clinton, Harris emphasized celebrity endorsements while failing to successfully court unions. (Most notably, the Teamsters declined to endorse her after she refused to pledge that she wouldn’t break a national railway strike.) Like Clinton, Harris focused too much on the danger of Donald Trump (which is very real) and not enough on the reasons why she would be good at being president herself.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 day ago (8 children)

You're right that she was Hilary 2.0, but for the wrong reason.

It has very little to do with policy.

The difference between winning and losing was almost certainly just people who preferred a man over a woman as president. Whether they will say it or not, America is still not ready for a female president.

"In 2020, men were almost evenly divided between Trump and Biden, unlike in 2016 when Trump won men by 11 points."

This election, Trump won men by 10 points again.

Democrats have got the largest share of women's votes in every election since 1988.

Losing 10 points of the male vote isn't caused by support for Israel, or a lack of progressive policies.

This is the sad truth.

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (3 children)

It's the economy. They can scream the economy numbers are great but the people are feeling it differently at the grocery store, gas station, paying rent, etc.

[–] Blademaster00@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Right, economy. Both candidates ran on fixing it. But one wasn't a black woman.....

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"It's broken because of Biden and she should have fixed it during the last four years." It's stupid logic but that's what it came down to for some.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca -5 points 1 day ago

Women didn't buy that logic, but men did?

Harris won essentially the same percentage of women as Biden did, but lost entirely on the fact that fewer men voted for her (by a wide margin)

I'm pretty sure the simple explanation is right here, and it had nothing to do with the economy.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)