Oh shit I meant to take out the part about black men, thanks.
The dems lack policy, but the specifically white and latino men who stayed home didn’t do it because of policies. The dems had no change in policy and they had no issues voting for it the first time. I get it that toxic masculinity makes a lot of men in the US into snowflakes when trying to talk about our bigot problems, but downvotes don’t change observable reality.
I don’t care what senators were elected, that has nothing to do with the presidential canidate being a woman. And it has nothing to do with who old white people want as president.
Of course not, since that contradicts your narrative. It’s quite a stretch to assume that if a woman loses it must be because of sexism (ignoring the many, many flaws in her campaign), but it’s an even bigger stretch to assume that people who didn’t vote for her, yet voted to put other women into the upper echelons of the US government, merely didn’t vote for her because of sexism.
Your narrative is impossible to disprove through evidence because it was not derived from evidence, and the purpose of the narrative is not to reflect reality. The purpose of the narrative is to save face and deflect criticism from the party. It is purely a psychological coping mechanism, which personally I have little patience for.
The only narrative here is observable reality, you are allowed to look at the same fucking graphs I did.
Senators aren’t the president. Do you know how many people literally just vote for the president and leave the rest blank? Millions.
The dems didn’t have a candidate people wanted to come out for, and the people who stayed home were older more conservative people who vote democrat because they don’t like the current republican party. And they stayed home because the canidate changed, not the policy.
Im sorry these subjects make you feel insecure. Maybe try self reflecting and growing instead of screaming about how the neolibs should have magically changed their stripes.
The dems didn’t have a candidate people wanted to come out for, and the people who stayed home were older more conservative people who vote democrat because they don’t like the current republican party. And they stayed home because the canidate changed, not the policy.
Right, and that’s the only possible reason, isn’t it? Because people’s voting behavior is explainable by exactly two things: policy and bigotry. Messaging is irrelevant. Changes in the economy and political situation are irrelevant. Sexism is the only factor that matters, and, conveniently yet completely coincidentally, just so happens to be a factor that completely absolves Kamala and the Democrats of any and all fault.
Im sorry these subjects make you feel insecure.
Projection.
Maybe try self reflecting and growing instead of screaming about how the neolibs should have magically changed their stripes.
I don’t expect them to change their stripes. I think their economic approach is a very flawed strategy both in terms of not being good policy and in terms of winning elections, you can’t run on the status quo when the status quo isn’t working for people. However, even completely ignoring that aspect, it was still a terribly run campaign lacking any coherent message while failing to adapt to a changing media environment (streamers, for example) which the right jumped on. Kamala Harris had never demonstrated any real ability to connect with voters or get out the vote and would have bombed out of a competitive primary exactly like she did in 2020.
Do you accept that it’s possible for an individual woman to be a bad candidate or to run a bad campaign, or do you think claiming that is automatically sexist? You can always rely on liberals to weaponize allegations like that in order to defend the ruling class.
I have to say I find your grandstanding and accusations funny because I’m old enough to remember when Elizabeth Warren attacked Bernie Sanders by claiming that he said he didn’t think a woman could win the election (which he denied), and it was enough of a scandal for a bit of a news cycle. Now, you’re telling me that a woman couldn’t have won the election and it’s somehow sexist to think otherwise. What a joke. Namecalling is all you’ve got and it’s completely meaningless to me.
Oh shit I meant to take out the part about black men, thanks.
The dems lack policy, but the specifically white and latino men who stayed home didn’t do it because of policies. The dems had no change in policy and they had no issues voting for it the first time. I get it that toxic masculinity makes a lot of men in the US into snowflakes when trying to talk about our bigot problems, but downvotes don’t change observable reality.
I don’t care what senators were elected, that has nothing to do with the presidential canidate being a woman. And it has nothing to do with who old white people want as president.
Of course not, since that contradicts your narrative. It’s quite a stretch to assume that if a woman loses it must be because of sexism (ignoring the many, many flaws in her campaign), but it’s an even bigger stretch to assume that people who didn’t vote for her, yet voted to put other women into the upper echelons of the US government, merely didn’t vote for her because of sexism.
Your narrative is impossible to disprove through evidence because it was not derived from evidence, and the purpose of the narrative is not to reflect reality. The purpose of the narrative is to save face and deflect criticism from the party. It is purely a psychological coping mechanism, which personally I have little patience for.
The only narrative here is observable reality, you are allowed to look at the same fucking graphs I did.
Senators aren’t the president. Do you know how many people literally just vote for the president and leave the rest blank? Millions.
The dems didn’t have a candidate people wanted to come out for, and the people who stayed home were older more conservative people who vote democrat because they don’t like the current republican party. And they stayed home because the canidate changed, not the policy.
Im sorry these subjects make you feel insecure. Maybe try self reflecting and growing instead of screaming about how the neolibs should have magically changed their stripes.
Right, and that’s the only possible reason, isn’t it? Because people’s voting behavior is explainable by exactly two things: policy and bigotry. Messaging is irrelevant. Changes in the economy and political situation are irrelevant. Sexism is the only factor that matters, and, conveniently yet completely coincidentally, just so happens to be a factor that completely absolves Kamala and the Democrats of any and all fault.
Projection.
I don’t expect them to change their stripes. I think their economic approach is a very flawed strategy both in terms of not being good policy and in terms of winning elections, you can’t run on the status quo when the status quo isn’t working for people. However, even completely ignoring that aspect, it was still a terribly run campaign lacking any coherent message while failing to adapt to a changing media environment (streamers, for example) which the right jumped on. Kamala Harris had never demonstrated any real ability to connect with voters or get out the vote and would have bombed out of a competitive primary exactly like she did in 2020.
Do you accept that it’s possible for an individual woman to be a bad candidate or to run a bad campaign, or do you think claiming that is automatically sexist? You can always rely on liberals to weaponize allegations like that in order to defend the ruling class.
I have to say I find your grandstanding and accusations funny because I’m old enough to remember when Elizabeth Warren attacked Bernie Sanders by claiming that he said he didn’t think a woman could win the election (which he denied), and it was enough of a scandal for a bit of a news cycle. Now, you’re telling me that a woman couldn’t have won the election and it’s somehow sexist to think otherwise. What a joke. Namecalling is all you’ve got and it’s completely meaningless to me.