If Kamala was a garbage candidate, what does that make Trump?
For bonus points, how is it not the voters fault considering any rational answer to the above question? You may open your book to look up topical issues like peace, climate, genocide, rights, hate, juvenile bullying, criminal bullying, felony conviction, bigotry (don’t miss misogyny relating to to “garbage candidate”, see above), and tariffs.
Removed by mod
If Kamala was a garbage candidate, what does that make Trump?
The guy who told voters what they wanted to hear. “I know you’re upset at the world, and I’m going to make it great again.”
The best Kamala could do was “I won’t do anything differently from the Biden administration.”
The constant liar who told voters what they wanted to hear.
You and I both know he’s a con artist who won’t fix anything. But when voters don’t feel like the establishment is listening to them, that’s when they become desperate enough to fall for a con artist. Because at least the con artist made them think there was hope.
You can complain about that all you want, but the fact that Bitcoin is reaching new record highs tells me that your average person would rather be conned than be told the truth.
One of these days, the repeatedly record-breaking highs are going to teach those idiots a lesson.
It’s at these levels because cyrpto firms were the largest interest group funneling cash into the 2024 election. it remains nothing more than a bigger fool scam, but this time with the US government’s seal of approval.
Do you disagree that the SEC has been doing an good job with crypto under the Biden administration?
It is utterly wild to me that Biden had to withdraw from the race because he was so unpopular and the Harris team was like, let’s just tie ourselves as snugly to that man as possible. Real brain geniuses on that team. I just read she was relying on a ex uber exec. And it all made sense.
If that’s all it takes, I can do that. Apparently following through doesn’t matter. Though TBF, who actually follows through on most of what they say? 🤷
Turns out, lecturing the voters doesn’t make them want to vote for you. Everything you said is correct, but those weren’t the concerns that resonated. To quote Bill Clinton’s strategist in 92, “it’s the economy, stupid.” Yeah, the economy is doing great right now, but you have to ask, “for who?”
I agree that right now, our economists have a terrible way of defining a “good economy”. They have praise for a set of numbers such as the stock market rates, which have almost no connection to the well-being of common people.
We need more medians and fewer averages; not to measure wealth when it’s spread among the extremes.
It’s not the economy, it’s a popularity contest when the majority of the electorate stop choosing candidates based on what they do and have done and instead only pay attention to what they say or choose based on uninformed vibes.
Exit polling overwhelmingly disagrees with you. The number one stated reason was the economy.
Which economic policy did they report was the deciding factor?
Now you’re going to try and nit pick to back peddle? The economy was the star of the show and Kamala didn’t have an easy to understand answer. The messaging, as always, was piss poor from the democrats.
If Kamala was a garbage candidate, what does that make Trump?
47th President of the USA?
Ok…
Weird this hasn’t come up before for you.
But different people have different standards.
For Republican voters, it’s usually just the letter by someone’s name.
Dem voters have always had higher standards than Republican voters.
For bonus points, how is it not the voters fault
Because the entire point of a candidates campaign is to get votes. And Kamala and her campaign couldn’t even beat fucking trump.
For all those reasons you just listed he’s terrible, Kamala still couldn’t beat him.
What metric do you think a candidate and their campaign should be judged by except number of votes?
Bonus points:
Why don’t you think a shit tier opponent wouldnt make it easier? And how can a candidate who can’t beat trump not be considered “garbage”?
People insisting “no, Kamala Harris was the better candidate!” Are exactly the people this meme are calling out.
Clearly she wasn’t. That doesn’t mean she was a worse human being than Trump. That’s a hard standard to beat. But she was a worse candidate because she lost the election to him, which is the one thing you need to do in order to be the better candidate.
Since the election I’ve written comments the length of essays attempting to explain what you just put so succinctly. “She was a worse candidate because she lost the election to him, which is the one thing you need to do” 100% this.
For what it’s worth, I do try to make the distinction between her and her campaign. She might have been the winning candidate had her campaign made different decisions, but at the end of the day, she’s responsible for her campaign. They can’t force her to say anything she doesn’t want to.
I think there’s a lot of people talking past each other because they don’t agree on what the purpose of being a candidate is. We might think it’s getting elected, others might think it’s being the best representation of the party. Obviously, she wasn’t option 1, but some people may think she was better because they are libs who agree with her ideologically and are somehow still under the delusion that Rs represent state rights, “godliness”, and fiscal responsibility. They see Trump and think “how can people say he’s a better representative of Rs than Kamala is of Ds” and the answer is that they have no idea what Rs want and are incapable of recognizing the broad spectrum of people that normally vote D. I hope people can rid themselves of that kind of thinking because it’s obviously not serving them or the party. Either recognize that candidates need to be ELECTED to mean anything, or be prepared to be in this same position for the foreseeable future.
If I had a 95 meter head start on Usain bolt in the 100m, I could probably beat him. That doesn’t make me a better runner.
Do you think Trump was unbeatable?
Nah, but he had some serious advantages. Dems would do better to talk about why voters gave him preference on things like the economy. And of course, voters would do better to vote their self-interest
Dems should do better to talk about why they didn’t focus on the economy, when that’s what the electorate wanted them to focus on. It’s not their job to tell the electorate what’s more important to them.
Trump won. Sadly this means he was the better candidate. Which damning for the Democrats because he’s dog shit.
Unpopular opinion: Kamala was a solid candidate.
Biden was headed to a humiliating defeat. Another couple debates, and maybe he loses NY and CA and we have a Dukakis- or Mondale-level annhilation. Kamala stepped in and ran a solid campaign on very short notice. Trump didn’t even have time to come up with a good nickname for her! She kicked his ass in their only debate, and he was literally too scared to do it again.
In the end, she lost by a couple hundred thousand votes in 3 states. She was wrong about Gaza and the economy, but PA, MI, and WI are credibly winnable in future elections. Kamala was not a garbage candidate.
I think you are partially right. For starters… this was not short notice by any standard. She ran a “solid” campaign.
I’d argue the campaign was flawed because the whole premise was flawed… moving to the right does not help the democratic party. And the risk the Dems now face is that never trumpers join the democratic party and complete the transition of the US electoral system to a choice between maga (Christo fascism) and republican.
If the democratic party had an inkling that the victory of Trump would be as big as is now being said… running Kamala was a doomed endeavor… she was tainted by the Biden years.
What was solid about her? She lost to Trump of all people.
Ask Fox News, they will do their best to give you a fair and balanced assessment of her policies and-
sorry, couldn’t get through that sentence with a straight face.
I hope you realize this but Harris ended up in a humiliating defeat.
Unpopular opinion: Kamala was a solid candidate.
If that is an unpopular opinion then the statement is definitionally false.
This statement implies popularity = good, universally.
In the 1800s, slavery was popular. Hence, should a candidate have run on preserving slavery?
Removed by mod
No it doesn’t. A candidate needs a lot of qualities to be “good”. One of those qualities is the ability to be popular on election day. An unpopular candidate isn’t a good candidate. A popular candidate might be.
But it’s not the voters fault! America had no choice but to vote for the rapist misogynist xenophobic fraudster traitor con man failed businessman because the woman had a nasally voice!
Honestly, yes. Kamala was the way better choice of the two. Biden kinda fell off for me the moment he did the railroad strike stuff.
But I’m not living in the US, so my point is kinda moot.
Biden got those striking workers everything they wanted. He just didn’t scream about it like Trump would have, which was a huge mistake.
The result was a compromise, in parts due to a blockage of the republicans. It was good, but it would have been so much better if they could have continued to hold the distribution of wares hostage. It could have been really awesome for workers as a reason to do the same.
I get that Biden did that to stump broad civil unrest in the whole US, btw. That would have put a lot of people on the streets demanding change. While destroying untold sums.
Little bit of A, lotta bit of B.
Trump was the most garbage candidate in every way in the history of our country.
He basically coasted to victory.
Double-standards for days.
If candidate 1 is garbage, and candidate 2 loses to candidate 1, what does that say about candidate 2?
That the voters are braindead
Yep. Garbage in, garbage out.
Idiocracy is a documentary.
Though I’ll say it shouldn’t come as a surprise that voters vote against their own interests when the waters of truth are so muddied by the rich and powerful.
That the electorate has been primed to applaud fascistic tendencies as long as they are not called “fascist” by a 24/7 deluge of propaganda networks. The caricature of Harris painted in a phalanx of right-wing disinformation channels looks worse than the picture they painted of Trump. Reality has not had as much impact on this election as one would hope.
This is maddening. It will never stop. The democrats refuse to campaign on progressive policies, which are incredibly popular among the entire electorate (yes, also among republicans, see the recent ballot measures in Missouri on paid sick leave and higher minimum wage, for example), instead opting to position themselves as “republican light”. They completely capitulate to republican messaging on pretty much every issue (border wall, fracking, pro war, etc), and predictably lose to the people who invented this messaging. And then comes the worst part: angry libs start blaming the electorate instead of the people who lost. It’s not the lack of the dems even mentioning universal health care, no it’s the trans people. It’s not the genocide that the current democratic regime is committing, no it’s probably actually latino voters. It’s not the fact that the Harris campaign asks us to pretend everything is hunky spunky with the economy, offering nothing to relieve the 80% of the population who live paycheck to paycheck. Noooo you know what it’s actually white women and muslims faults. You fucking morons.
Can’t wait for the 2026 anti-transgender dem ticket, and the anti gay marriage ticket in 2028. It’s gonna be great.
then comes the worst part: angry libs start blaming the electorate instead of the people who lost
I feel like even calling them “angry libs” gives them some measure of undeserved credibility. Let’s call them “fucking crybaby closet fascists” because that’s what they are.
Try some lefty moves or keep losing Dems.
Money… the big donors won’t let them
California couldn’t get minimum wage, rent control, health care, it even slavery, One state moving progressively is not winning the federal election
The point that I’m making is that across the board, progressive policies are popular. And that does win elections, just look at Obamna’s and Sanders’ campaigns. That one state was just one extreme example of this fact.
It’s absolutely absurd how no one mentioned how regressive Harris’s platform actually was.
Zero mention of universal healthcare. She acted like that concept doesn’t even exist. America needs healthcare in the worst way. My girlfriend has diabetes and it’s so rough to pay for it all.
She also basically sprinted backwards in terms of fighting climate change. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing when she was debating with Trump and they were both yelling over each other about who was more pro fracking. Fucking insanity.
Not to mention that her border policy was even harsher than what Trump wanted in his first term. Does anyone else not remember how outraged we all were about the kids in camps being separated from their parents? But when a Democrat does it all of the sudden it’s a good thing? Fuck that.
(yes, also among republicans, see the recent ballot measures in Missouri on paid sick leave and higher minimum wage, for example)
this IS true, but it is not true among left leaning candidates. Just look at florida. People are way too functionally stupid to do anything in line with what they actually want.
I believe there is even some older data to support this, something along the lines of “people like welfare they don’t know they’re paying for, but when they know they’re paying for it, they don’t want to”
It’s not the fact that the Harris campaign asks us to pretend everything is hunky spunky with the economy,
as far as economic measures go, it is. Inflation is still fucking people over, but the popular sentiment sort of lags the economy. But just because inflation is brutal on goods, doesn’t mean that inflation is high, or that the economy is “struggling” it’s just that people don’t feel good about rising tides. Until they start to lower. (which they can’t do)
it’s just a human psych thing.
as far as economic measures go, it is. Inflation is still fucking people over, but the popular sentiment sort of lags the economy. But just because inflation is brutal on goods, doesn’t mean that inflation is high, or that the economy is “struggling” it’s just that people don’t feel good about rising tides.
80% of people live paycheck to paycheck. Don’t bullshit me.
yeah, and nothing changed that, people are still living paycheck to paycheck.
Now if you can find stats of MORE people living paycheck to paycheck (which do exist) that would be more convincing, but even then the underlying truth is still that it’s going to take time for things to improve, as well as inflation can’t be undone. So prices are at a new normal.
So the fact that “more stats abt people living paycheck to paycheck” would convince you strongly, strongly indicates that I’m not explaining myself well enough. I’m not under the impression that if I did communicate effectively you would magically be convinced. And that’s not necessarily my goal, but I would like to be able to have a productive convo with you, so I’m gonna give it another shot.
Here’s two facts that I’m convinced of:
- if a consistent set of policies/campaign promises enjoy massive popular support across the aisle, then making such positions a core part of your campaign and your efforts when elected will give you a much higher chance of getting elected
- progressive policies (i.e., paid sick leave, parental leave, union-strengthening laws, universal health care, antitrust legislation, increasing solvency of social security, and so on (note that I do not mention culture war stuff)) enjoy broad popular support, across the aisle, in all states
If you believe these facts (and you don’t need to), then an unavoidable conclusion is that if Harris would’ve run a progressive campaign, she would’ve had a much higher chance of winning.
The weakness in my argument is the two facts I mentioned. They require evidence. I’ve given a smidge of evidence for the second fact (the smoking gun of the ballot measures in Missouri). A better way to go about it is to find some policy oriented polls targeting a good cross section of the electorate which show that people (R, D, and I) generally support progressive policies (think paid sick leave, think universal health care).
The first fact is much harder to prove, but I would argue that common sense gets you a long way here. But for a more empirical approach, look at the Sanders and Obamna campaigns and the fairly broad and enthusiastic support they enjoyed.
The reason I think I wasn’t explaining myself well enough is because the stats you’re asking for do almost nothing to support my argument. At best, they’re indirect, weak, evidence of the second fact. It shouldn’t convince you if I find you some stats about the working homeless and paycheck-to-paycheck livers.
EDIT: I feel like I understand a bit better where your response is coming from. You think that I’m arguing in favor of the effectivity of progressive policies, rather than the popularity. I happen to believe both, but we’re talking about why the dems lost, and in a democracy, the popularity of policies is what matters un such discussions, not their effectivity. Again, it’s a bit off topic, but for the effectivity you could look at the rate of homelessness and paycheck-to-paycheck situations in more progressively legislated and often poorer countries in western Europe. You’ll find that aside from popular (which is what matters here), these policies are also crazy effective.
If voters bear no responsibility, do you really believe in democracy, or are you thinking about this as an issue to be solved by authority?
The self-righteousness of this discussion is a problem. Politics requires some humility, which we seem to be short of.
You are misunderstanding how the system is supposed to work.
We have a responsibility to vote, but no candidate is owed a vote.
The government is meant to execute the will of the people. That’s why we live in a democracy. That means that the government is supposed to work for you. The politicians are supposed to essentially be public workers that are hired via votes of the citizens.
These public workers are supposed to be a reflection of the will of the people. If they don’t match what we want, then they don’t win.
No one is owed our votes. They are supposed to earn it.
You are misunderstanding how the system is supposed to work.
no, I think you have the misunderstanding of how it actually works.
We have a responsibility to vote, but no candidate is owed a vote.
given the choice, you want your genitals mutilated or your head removed? if you choose nothing then you get both. technically you don’t need to chose, but it’s in your best interest to make the choice that allows you to survive.
The government is meant to execute the will of the people. That’s why we live in a democracy. That means that the government is supposed to work for you. The politicians are supposed to essentially be public workers that are hired via votes of the citizens.
a government is not meant to execute the will of the people. a government is meant to control and maintain a society. the people are to control the government through their will to ensure the society supports the will of the people. Unfortunately, some people forgot this and have refused to participate in the will, IE voting, and have weakened our society to the point of fracturing.
politicians are not social workers, they care about maintaining control and exerting their will on the people. the job of the people is to ensure their elected officials reflect what the goals and will of the people are. Unfortunately, some people forgot this and have refused to participate in the will, IE voting, and have weakened our society to the point of fracturing.
your views on governance and politics is so antiquated and skewed you can’t even see what’s going on in front of you because you’re so blinded by the past.
“its not fair, the gubamint should be like dis!”
No one is owed our votes. They are supposed to earn it.
no one is owed freedom, no one is owed liberty. You are supposed to fucking earn it by participating in the election and helping us move this ship away from disaster.
this election was like playing tug of war with the helm and having half of our supporters watch from the side complaining about how, “we didn’t want to go this way so we’re not going to stop the ship from crashing into those rocks.”
at one time I had hope for the future but now I can see I was wrong. We’re doomed, not by the corruption, not by the sadistic megalomania, but from arrogance and apathy that flows from lazy Americans.
Imagine taking that many words to say you like being a slave and don’t believe there will ever be a different world.
None of this really addresses my question.
None of the people clamoring for a better candidate are stepping up, or getting out there to get it done. They just want someone in power to do it, which is counter productive.
While claiming to be anarchists, socialists, progressives, leftists, whatever. I get the sour grapes, I do, but the reality is that you’re going to have to get off your couch and actually organize if you want something better than the corporate handout candidates the DNC is going to give you.
For all of the awful things about Trump, it’s really difficult to deny that he spent much more time and energy building a political movement than any other candidate since Obama.
It’s kinda crazy to me that a sizable amount of people expect a perfect completely spotless candidate, or they don’t vote and hand over the win to fascism.
In a rational world, Harris would have won without even doing a single rally, because the alternative is Trump and his cronies.
People generally don’t realize that the only way to get an option to the left of the democrats is if Republicans no longer win elections. But with each “punishment”, voters give the democrats, the Republicans’ grip on power gets tighter and tighter, with more cronie judges, more gerrymandering, more voter purges, more ID rules, and more propaganda.
So, are the voters, or rather those who didn’t vote, wrong? Fuck yes, for the reason that because of them, we now have Trump as the US president rather than him going to prison like he deserves. Of course they are wrong. How is that even a question?
People generally don’t realize that the only way to get an option to the left of the democrats is if Republicans no longer win elections.
Absofuckinglutely wrong. The number of Democrats still buying this bullshit is astounding. THIS is why you lose so damn much.
No Democratic candidate has had more support from right leaning voters than Bernie Sanders in the last 30 years. Explain that with your model. It’s not just about some smooth gradient from left to right and capturing the middle. We are in a populist age. The people are totally fed up with the status quo.
It’s disruptors that win, not whomever captures the center of a spectrum that only policy wonks even care about. Anyone who’s chief concern is left vs right is already a decided voter.
Way to miss the point. Against Trump, it shouldn’t matter who the other candidate is. A fucking bucket of snails could have been candidate and I’d vote for it over it over fascism.
this is why you lose so damn much
“This candidate isn’t left enough for me. By not voting I essentially vote for fascism”. That is why democrats lose.
Would a more left leaning candidate have more chances? Maybe? No matter what, should it have mattered if the alternative is Trump? Absolutelyfucking not, but apparently it does.
Way to miss the point. Against Trump, it shouldn’t matter who the other candidate is.
That’s a useless point to make. Of course is shouldn’t matter. The important point is, it did matter. The disconnect between these two points ought to make you question your assumptions about how to win elections. Clinging desperately to a model that has failed over and over and over again is insanity.
“This candidate isn’t left enough for me. By not voting I essentially vote for fascism”
This is rhetorically a dumb way to argue. I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but it’s just to easy to point out that not voting for fascism would also have to be considered a vote against fascism. It’s just a dumb way to argue and just further antagonizes the person you are supposedly trying to convince. You don’t get votes by attacking voters.
Would a more left leaning candidate have more chances? Maybe?
A more populist candidate would have more chances. That does generally mean further left or right, but doesn’t necessarily have to be either. I want a leftist candidate but, honestly, an anti-corruption centrist might have as much of a chance. Big money billionaires buying politicians is extremely unpopular across the spectrum. Good luck getting a Democratic centrist to run on that though.
Yeah. I’m done talking to you. The way you argue shows that you rather be calling people names than actually make arguments. If you can’t be respectful in a discussion, I’m not gonna waste my time with you.
Your tantrum might be more convincing had I actually called you or anyone else a name. As for tone, read your own comments.
Against Trump, it shouldn’t matter who the other candidate is. A fucking bucket of snails could have been candidate and I’d vote for it over it over fascism.
And what is it called when there is only “one correct choice” on a ballot? It might have been the lesser evil, but I think the USA needs to get off their high horse and come to terms with the end of their democracy, if the only option is to vote one way.
During Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign in 1992, he employed a strategy to appeal to moderate and right-leaning voters, which helped him secure support from some traditionally Republican constituencies. Here are key points about Clinton’s approach and support from right-wing voters:
Centrist Positioning
Clinton positioned himself as a “New Democrat,” advocating for centrist policies that appealed to moderate and conservative voters[2]. This included:
- Emphasizing fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget
- Supporting welfare reform
- Taking a tough stance on crime
- Promoting free trade
Targeting Reagan Democrats
Clinton specifically aimed to win back “Reagan Democrats” - working-class white voters who had previously supported Republicans[6]. He focused on economic issues and cultural values that resonated with this group.
“Triangulation” Strategy
Clinton used a strategy of “triangulation,” which involved:
- Distancing himself from traditional liberal Democratic positions
- Adopting some conservative policy stances
- Positioning himself between the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and Republicans[7]
Appeal to Suburban Voters
Clinton made significant inroads with suburban voters, including many who had previously voted Republican[2]. His moderate positions on social and economic issues appealed to this demographic.
Breaking the “Republican Lock”
Clinton’s strategy helped him win states that had been part of the Republican “lock” on the Electoral College, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin[6].
While Clinton did not win a majority of right-wing voters, his centrist approach and focus on economic issues allowed him to peel away enough support from traditionally Republican constituencies to win the election. This strategy was controversial within the Democratic Party but proved effective in the general election[2][7].
Citations: [1] An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on validated voters https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/ [2] Controversy: Why Did Clinton Win? - The American Prospect https://prospect.org/power/controversy-clinton-win/ [3] In Their Own Words: Why Voters Support – and Have Concerns About https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/09/21/in-their-own-words-why-voters-support-and-have-concerns-about-clinton-and-trump/ [4] Basket of deplorables - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables [5] Governing in an Age of No Majorities: Bill Clinton’s mission for a … https://www.brookings.edu/articles/governing-in-an-age-of-no-majorities-bill-clintons-mission-for-a-second-term/ [6] Here’s how Democrats have changed since the Bill Clinton era https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/democratic-party-dnc-bill-clinton-era-changes-rcna166669 [7] Bill Clinton: Campaigns and Elections | Miller Center https://millercenter.org/president/clinton/campaigns-and-elections [8] Don’t understand Trump supporters? Remembering Bill Clinton … https://kansasreflector.com/2024/08/03/dont-understand-trump-supporters-remembering-bill-clinton-might-help-you/
That’s an impressive writeup. Here is the problem. This is 2024, not 1992. Clinton’s strategy has not aged well.
2008 - Hillary and McCain both ran a centrist strategy and lost to Obama who ran as a disruptor. Obama gets a mandate.
2010 - Democrats lose Congress and the mandate on a centrist strategy.
2012 - Obama almost loses to Mit Romney with both running centrist strategies.
2016 - Hillary loses on a centrist strategy against Trump who is clearly not a centrist.
2020 - Biden barely moves towards a disruptor position and barely beats Trump who should have been easily beatable.
2024 - Need I say it?
Out of your 6 examples half of them involve Democratic victories and you noticeably left 2018 and 2022 for not fitting in with your straw man
I didn’t have time to write a book. The examples I gave were more than sufficient to get the point across. A couple of minor exceptions don’t disprove the rule. COVID and abortion dominated in 2022, and Trump looked more like the status quo than a disruptor in 2018.
The half that were victories are when the Republicans took the more centrist approach and Democrats ran as disruptors. Remember Obama’s “Change!” slogan? Too bad he didn’t mean it.
I note that you only used one election from over a quarter of a century ago to support your argument.
Good luck with shaming people into voting for you. It didn’t work in 2016 and it didn’t work now. Letting the DNC off the hook won’t change anything.
Its a two party system. You will not get anything close to a working progressive government until there are more then two. If the Dems win, they get a bit more corrupt and take money to slide a bit right. If they lose, they slide right to “capture” more votes/money (the money works the votes not so much).
The nasty things that get done (say under 2016 trump) are not undone by the Democrats when next in power. This makes them at best an enabler of crap policy and at worst (also most likely) guilty of using the bad actions of the Republicans to stay in power.
I don’t know how at this point you doods can fix it, but you don’t have a democracy at the moment. Its just authoritarianism under threat of worse authoritarianism.
It’s almost like you can’t fix everything in 4 years, especially with midterms.
If it was so easy to undo things, Obamacare would have been dismantled in the first trump term.
But since things weren’t fixed fast enough, let’s let the people who broke everything back in power again.
Yet the Republicans seem to have no issues undoing things every 4 years.
Obamacare was crippeled last time I looked into it. But maybe it’s different then what I see from up here.
Obamacare is still there, last i checked.
Perfection is the enemy of progress.
I can tell that many people in these comments have given up on every artistic skill they’ve ever tried to learn because their attempts were never good enough right out of the gate.
Great way to put it. People use the excuse of bad candidates to dodge personal responsibility and duty. Also the people complaining about candidates are very rarely doing anything about it or stepping up, they just sit at home and wait for it to just materialize
If the only reason you voted for trump as a form of ‘punishment’ towards dems, then yea that is on the voters. You should be voting for what helps you. Not to be a petty idiot.
So the action plan is what? Cull the voters? Breed better voters?
The first job of a politician is to reach and convince voters. Harris had a billion dollars and didn’t do it. Yes, the voters made bad choices, but blaming the voters is not a way forward. There is no escaping that we have to figure out what Harris could have done better. More precisely, shitlibs need to figure it out because progressives already know and have been screaming it from the rooftops for decades.
“Jill made bad choices. I blame Bob because he didn’t convince Jill to make a good choice.”
This is such circular fucking reasoning. Apparently it’s literally impossible for a voter to make a stupid decision, because all blame will circle back to the candidate for “Not being convincing enough”.
Here is what you are missing. The point of finding fault is to do better next time. Anything else is just removed. Yes, the voters got it wrong. Next cycle we will have the same voters and a different candidate. Pretending Harris was a good candidate just invites the same outcome.
Maybe you think the voters are just unreachable. I think that’s nonsense.
I agree; and I personally believe that the fault is with all the voters. All the voters need to do better next time.
There is potential to put yourself in an unmovable situation when you deny the capacity for individuals to find fault in, and correct, themselves. When they’re all “special snowflakes incapable of fault, for whom the horrible and evil politicians must serve to attain their vote” you may set yourself up for either a failing relationship, or lies. Contrary to what one might expect, saying “I’ve heard the opinions of others, and I think I was wrong about X” is not a social death sentence. I’ve said it online before, and others need to be ready to do the same.
Maybe JFK expressed that thought better than I can.
People vote for single issues all the time. Sometimes its abortions, the economy, etc. But God forbid people seem disgusted at rewarding genocide and voting for harris. People saw no other option other than to either punish them by voting for the other, 3rd party or not voting at all. I dont blame them.
Why do American voters dodge personal responsibility better than bullets?
Removed by mod
Since we are asking questions, why are you taking bullets for the DNC after making the exact same mistakes again. You wanna talk personal responsibility, where is the responsibility expectation for the multi billion dollar campaign.
That’s not how this works. It is not a voters duty to vote for a candidate. The voter does not owe a candidate votes.
Giving someone your vote is like giving them your personal political power. That’s why the popular vote works.
The responsibility is on the party to put forth appropriate candidates that reflect the will of the people. It is up to them to sell themselves to us, not the other way around.
In a democracy, all power is derived from the will of the people. They work for us. Not the other way around.
It is up to the party to deliver appropriate candidates that will accurately reflect the will of the people.
Under normal circumstances with two evenly opposed candidates, I’d 100% agree with you, and I think you’d be hard-pressed to find many others that wouldn’t.
But we were just given a desperate eleventh hour opportunity to save our democracy against a man who blatantly admitted he will be a dictator. That he would use America’s military against her citizens. That he wants to help Israel “finish the job.”
…and now, because of smug and arrogant third party/protest voters that cry mind-bogglingly arrogant nonsense such as;
It’s not a voters duty to vote!
we get trump. And with that, many… MANY people will lose their rights. All because your entitlement seems to have no limits and no concern for those that will be hurt in the next decade or two.
So, please. Do me a favor and at least take a bow and collectively own what you all have done. It was a hell of an effort to not act when you were needed.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
So you want Trump to deport migrants? You want Trump to suppress votes? You want Trump to arrest teachers, doctors, disloyalists and other malcontents?
Seriously do you liberals understand the meaning of words you use, or deep down do you know that Trump is a fascist the same way Biden is.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
fucking amazing, it should be stickied to the top of every political community.
deleted by creator
When you live in a shit 2 party system and the choice is between Trump and absolutely anything else - you vote to prevent Trump !!
I’m a European lefty, so I’m probably left of Bernie. Like him I’d have held my nose and voted blue.
The voters aren’t wrong. It’s the non-voters that are wrong. Democracy should never be collateral for a protest…
EVER.
Despite everyone on Lemmy saying otherwise, people didn’t stay home because of the genocide. Most Americans don’t give a fuck about what’s happening in the next town over, let alone in Gaza. They stayed home because they weren’t given a convincing self-serving reason to make the effort to vote.
The threat of trump should have been enough reason to vote. Because we were at eleventh hour of the life of our democracy. Yet these smug, entitled protest voters stayed home and let trump win America.
It’s their fault.
You’re right, it should have. But I don’t think the vast majority of the 15 million-ish people who stayed home were protesting. I think they were low-information voters who didn’t see a compelling reason to get out and vote. And yes, it is their fault.
The idea that no voters changed from blue to red is nuts. 10 million (so far) less votes over all don’t mean the same people:
- Where alive this time
- Voted the same
- Voted at all
The idea that it is “low-information” voters is also suspect as the race was between Trump (who I doubt any US citizen has NOT heard of) and the status quo. They might have just not seen a compelling reason to vote, a thing that people can chose to do.
You can place blame on people staying home, but in my opinion if the DNC exists in four years (in even slightly the way it is now) you will have more people sitting it out next time (if there is one). We are watching the inevitable end to any two party political system.
TBF if we lived in a democracy there would be no protest, because most people want the progressive policies over which they were protesting.
But electoralism has less to do with policy than narrative. Most people vote against progressive policies because the prevailing narrative paints them as tyrannical government overstep, and like it or not “socialism” is a scary word to the very people who would benefit most. You don’t win by being right, you win by convincing people to vote for you. The ones campaigning on progressive policies are bad at that
makes me happy seeing politically intelligent people in the thread here.
These type of threads always suck for the first few days to a week though lmao.
It can be both.
This, but unironically.
Trump was so bad that in a sane world a desiccated cat turd shoukd have beat him
The fact Harris lost doesn’t mean shes a bad candidate, it means we don’t live in a sane world.
Yeah I agree, it’s the voters who are wrong. Can’t wait to see how this strategy pans out next cycle!
Honestly, the voters voted in a way that made sense, given the information they had, which was either nothing - complete and utter lethargy, or a hyper-partisan distortion of reality reinforced by a multi-billion dollar propaganda industry backed by, among many others, the literally richest man on the planet in addition to an entire network of propaganda stations blasting disinformation 24/7. The voters being wrong is intentional and has been in the making for decades.
They did vote in a way that makes sense. The Harris campaign offered nothing in the way of economic relief, while committing genocide. That’s an insanely bad proposition. Stop blaming voters and look at your dogshit candidates.
Trump offered less than nothing in the way of economic relief and he will accelerate the genocide. The voters didn’t vote in a way that makes sense, and that is Harris’s fault.
Be honest: you claim that Harris offers no economic relief because you yourself never bothered to look up her actual policies and you’ve been told that she has none. It’s wild to even compare anything she’s proposed to Trump’s economic policies and conclude that she offers the general populace less when all Trump has done is to massively shift wealth from the bottom to the top and will most likely continue to do just that.
Name them.
Go to her fucking policy page and read them. They’re still there. Off the top of my head, additional support for parents, anti-gouging laws limiting price hiking, tax incentives for creation of more housing supply, among others that were expressly mentioned by her and can still be found on hee campaign page.
Here’s the thing; if, “go to her policy page,” is your answer, you’re proving their point. There was some stuff in her platform that I actually really liked, but I didn’t hear about it for a while, and I’m terminally plugged into politics. What I heard a lot about when I listened to her stumping was middle-class shit like small business credits and first-time homebuyer’s assistance. For Americans living paycheck to paycheck, you might as well be offering them a butler subsidy. The stuff that would have helped the poorest Americans, like grocery price control, was on the sidelines when it needed to be the center of the campaign.
You understand we’re talking about messaging here, and that most of the electorate does not read the policy pages. I guess you don’t actually otherwise I wouldn’t have to write this. The electorate sees the ads, the debates, and if they’re really engaged, maybe the interview. Compare those with Obamna’s interviews and so on. His were inundated with references to health care and the like. Hers with quaint stories about how she was a small business when she was growing up or some shit, and maybe uncritical support for apartheid.
Opposing price gouging alone would be a step that aims to prevent corporations from conspiring to drive costs up at will for everybody who doesn’t profit off price-gouging. Compare and contrast that to Trump’s biggest achievements, massive tax cuts for the ultra-rich and getting his cronies the commission to build a tiny fragment of a wall that Mexico yet has to pay for, and everybody who’s not rich enough to own a TV station should be on her side.
Being right doesn’t automatically make you popular.
Apparently it does on the right.
I mean, yes, the over 70 million voters who voted for Trump absolutely are wrong. That they’re mostly too willfully fucking stupid to understand that may speak to a failure in Harris’ messaging, but nevertheless does not absolve them of the guilt of being willfully dumb as fucking rocks.
Harris had concrete plans to tackle many, though not all, of the issues people actually care about. People voted for the man openly stating he will make those issues worse.
It’s blatantly the fault of the voters. Until you people can get your heads out of your asses and join us in reality nothing will change.
Truth. We definitely need to nominate better voters next cycle.
No she hasn’t.
‘No it isn’t’ without any citations is the laziest response ever and earns you my ‘disregard opinions’ tag next to your username
Two things:
- that’s literally what you did, assert some claim about her campaign without providing any evidence
- you’re asking me to prove a negative
If you have any leg to stand on, it shouldn’t be hard to come up with a concrete example of what you mean.
Housing Affordability:
- Construct 3 million new housing units over 4 years
- Provide up to $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers
- Expand the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
- Create tax incentives for builders constructing starter homes for first-time buyers
- Establish a $40 billion innovation fund to support local housing supply solutions[1][2]
Tax Relief and Economic Support:
- Expand the child tax credit, including $6,000 for newborns and $3,600 per child for middle/lower-income families
- Restore the Earned Income Tax Credit for those earning under $63,398
- Pledge not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000 annually
- Expand a startup tax deduction from $5,000 to $50,000 for small businesses[1][3]
Healthcare Costs:
- Expand the $35 monthly insulin cap to all Americans (not just seniors)
- Implement a $2,000 cap on out-of-pocket prescription costs
- Work with states to abolish medical debt
- Expand Affordable Care Act subsidies[1][3]
Climate and Clean Energy:
- Invest in emerging clean industries, focusing on steel and cement production
- Expand tax credits for affordable, energy-efficient housing
- Accelerate implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act’s climate provisions[4]
Worker Protections:
- Support passage of the PRO Act to strengthen unions
- Expand paths to good jobs without college degrees
- Prioritize economic development nationally[4]
All topics that have been of significant concern to voters. Just not enough for them to turn out.
Citations: [1] What We Know About Kamala Harris’ Policy Agenda Before … - Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/09/10/what-we-know-about-kamala-harris-policy-agenda-before-tonights-debate/ [2] Harris Campaign Releases Plans to Lower Housing Costs https://nlihc.org/resource/harris-campaign-releases-plans-lower-housing-costs [3] Harris has proposed a slew of economic policies. Here’s a look at … https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/harris-has-proposed-a-slew-of-economic-policies-heres-a-look-at-whats-in-them [4] Kamala Harris’ New Economic Plan Is a Win for Climate, Clean … https://www.evergreenaction.com/blog/kamala-harris-new-economic-plan-is-a-win-for-climate-clean-energy-manufacturing-and-the-middle-class-14 [5] Biden-Harris Administration Announces $6 Billion to Transform … https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-6-billion-transform-americas-industrial-sector [6] FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces New … https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2024/10/16/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-new-commitments-to-bolster-innovative-and-clean-construction-materials-across-the-united-states/ [7] Kamala Harris reaches agreement on transition planning with Biden … https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/kamala-harris-reaches-agreement-on-transition-planning-with-biden-administration-no-word-on-trump-yet/articleshow/113606134.cms [8] Kamala Harris’ Economic Platform: What We Know - Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/10/14/what-to-know-about-kamala-harris-economic-agenda-as-she-announces-new-proposals-for-black-men/
Right, so you expect me to believe that your own wilful ignorance is also her fault?
why so mad bro?
Man I can hear the laugh.
I’m gonna take a wild take and say the rich and powerful who direct the campaign are at fault for the campaign failing.
You are literally saying “all they had to do was appease these people and they’d win” and somehow it’s the fault of millions of random people rather than the few individuals unwilling to make that concession.
I’ve had comments with you before.
I know what you’re about, and you’re just boring. same old rhetoric over and over again.
no thanks.
Tired old rhetoric? What you want, me to spice it up with a random new position every time? Switch stances at random so you can feel some kinda satisfaction?
Um…
the voters kinda did the nominating…
Edit: To clarify what I mean. People who voted in the Democratic primary didn’t exactly vote for Biden, but voted for delegates that pledge to vote to Biden at the convention. Those delegates then can vote for who they think the people who voted for them would want when Biden dropped out. The delegates decided the voters would’ve wanted Harris since shes the VP, and that’s probably what the voter would’ve want.
If you argue that Biden only won the 2024 nomination because of 2020. Well yea voters voted for him in 2020 too. 🤷♂️
People need to vote in primaries.
That doesn’t sound like a very democratic process to begin with cause all the power is in the delegates who can just choose whoever they want and not follow the desires of the voters. Which is how pretty much the whole system works to begin with, so its pretty rotten even at the very bottom
It doesn’t sound democratic because thats is what America is. This system of an intermediate group of people between voters and the electer official is why America is the way is is today. ahem Electoral College ahem
If trump wasn’t elected president in 2016, we would not even have this fascist mess to begin with.
Trust me I know. I’m saying voting in the primaries wouldn’t change anything. The only fix is to destroy the systems that let this happen in the first place. Capitalism and government
