this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2025
87 points (87.2% liked)

politics

19358 readers
2248 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 18 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Not one word in there about turning to the right, campaigning with Cheneys, ignoring all progressive policies, and generally behaving like R-lite in a bid to court R-votes that never came, with no message other than "look how much worse Trump is". I'm a little disappointed in Rolling Stone, but not at all surprised that the people they interviewed left those things out.

Ultimately, if this is their analysis, they'll make the 2016 mistakes for a third time in 2028.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Twelfth.

Democrats fall for this grift so often, they should change the party symbol to a pigeon.

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago
[–] skozzii@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Don't over analyze it, America is not ready for a woman to be president. So many women just want to take down other women that its just not time, which is sad. Adding some racial diversity in there just sealed the deal.

[–] ghen@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 days ago

More women voted for Hillary than Kamala by percent. The gender gap was way wider too. You can literally just look at the statistics and disprove your own bullshit. Kamala didn't lose because she was a woman because even compared to the other recent woman candidate she did poorly with women.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Funny how female Democratic senators won in three of the swing states Kamala lost, almost as if sexism wasn't the deciding factor... but that could imply that Kamala failed for a reason that's potentially her own fault, which might require some kind of self-reflection on the part of the Democratic party, and we absolutely can't have that under any circumstances. The Democrats can never fail, they can only be failed.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

The "voters wanted to punish Dems more than they wanted to save democracy" messaging is wild.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

The economic messaging was the main thing but even taking that as a given that they had to follow their donors' interests, it was just a really poorly executed campaign. Had to be to get the worst results since the Republicans won California. Tbh Harris just has terrible political instincts and she would've never survived a competitive primary (as evidenced by 2020).

One thing that's staggering to me is that they left Hasan Piker as an untapped resource. I'm not like a big fan of his but if you have this field of streamers where all the big names are right-wing, except one, you should really consider, like, figuring out what he's tapping into or doing right, idk, hire him as a consultant, go on his stream, do something with him. The Democrats are so slow to adapt strategically while the Republicans are much quicker to adapt, and idk what that's about, complacency ig.

Obviously the Dick Cheney strategy was completely useless, as usual. Democrats are married to this conventional wisdom, treated as a truism, that the way to win is by appealing to the median centrist voter, along this purely one dimensional spectrum of politics which is completely divorced from reality. I suspect the article is correct that they're too caught up in analytics that they lose sight of how people actually think.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 70 points 1 week ago (2 children)

(A Harris source admits the campaign could have made her more available for podcasts if they had more time, saying, “If we had had a six-month runway instead of 107 days … does she do Martha Stewart’s podcast? Does she do something with Ina Garten?… There’s so much, so many things that you can do, but we just didn’t have time.”)

These people will never fucking learn. Martha Stewart and Ina Garten occupy a fraction of the podcast space, which has very quickly come to take up the same platform as late night TV did twenty years ago or radio did before that. Don't forget that Bill Clinton's media blitz making him look like a normal, likeable guy is attributed to his presidency.

I don't like Joe Rogan or listen to JRE but it's obvious that scorning the largest audience in the world is ridiculous. Bernie did it and the comments on YT are overwhelmingly supportive of him. To just write off that entire audience as a lost cause was campaign suicide, even before the whole "i would put a Republican in my cabinet, thank you Liz Cheney" stuff happened, especially as we keep seeing that this election was determined by poor, economically stunted and socially disaffected young men.

[–] lewdian69@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The two examples are rich white women. Just still absolutely tone deaf

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (2 children)

No, no, no, surely you don't get it: the Harris campaign didn't target affluent, suburban white women enough. With a 6-month extension, they could've surely carved out enough support to counter Trump's gains in literally every relevant demographic.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] VivianRixia@piefed.social 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If they had 6 months, these examples would have given us way more things to point to on why Harris lost.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mjhelto@lemm.ee 38 points 1 week ago (1 children)

When they started listening to Democrat leadership instead of going with the momentum, I knew it was over. Pelosi and the gang urged the campaign to stop using "weird" and to court centrists with the Cheyne stunt.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If she had publically turned on Pelosi instead of bowing to her, she might have won. Hell, might have even had more luck attracting people on the right who didn't like Trump that way.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

One of the things the MAGA heads I used to live around liked about Bernie was that he was giving Clinton grief.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 30 points 1 week ago (25 children)

We don't need campaign insiders to tell us anything. We watched her do all the wrong things, just as any corporate democrat candidate would. It's not like anything was a secret. If she wanted workers' votes, all she had to do was actually push some decent policies.

[–] rhombus@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 days ago

We don't need campaign insiders to tell us anything.

Mostly because they haven’t learned shit. They still think they just needed more time or to change their advertising strategy. It’s infuriating. It’s not how the message was presented, it’s the damn message!

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] CascadianGiraffe@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They lost because they were offering the same bs they always do. No amount of time would have saved them. Trump won because he said he would do things differently. Harris lost because she wasted time fighting the Trump icon instead of offering solutions for everyday people.

Hopefully this failure will help push forth a party for the people instead of the garbage us vs them that we always get from both major parties.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

If they’d had an actual primary they would have gotten the pulse of the nation and wouldn’t have been defending an economy most people thought was bad.

[–] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

Trump won because americans are so incredibly stupid as a nation they think a felon who attempted coup to stay in power is better than a traditionally bad candidate.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Its crazy, they spent all that money when all they had to say on live TV to win everyone over (if all you want is to win of course) by saying fuck Israel, no more arms, and fuck all of you being poor, we're going to fix that shit like we did a century ago. Thats all they had to do imo. The Steam from it would have reverberated through every nook and crany.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They could have handled the Michigan problem in a lower key. Letting them speak at the convention and promising real investigations with paused shipments. That way they get the moral high ground for both sides without taking a side.

And as for the affordability crisis. All they had to do was say, we know we have more work to do, we successfully avoided a recession and more we must make sure we don't leave everyday Americans behind. Then go on to talk about trust busting, grocery prices, housing prices, car prices.

Instead they chose fear mongering and status quo. It was an out of touch campaign run by out of touch corporate elites.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] MetalMachine@feddit.nl 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah don't forget to add the fact she couldn't differentiate herself from biden on the palestine issue

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›