Women won senate races in three of the swing states she lost and a Hispanic man won a fourth. It’s hard to imagine an explanation more out of line with actual evidence.
The polls say otherwise. She was leading after her announcement, when she was still talking about healthcare reform, economic justice, taxing the rich, etc. For about three weeks.
Then she talked to her business rep corpo brother, and shifted gear to espousing pro-corporate policy, defending the wealthy, calling leftists Bernie bros, etc, and fell behind.
I agree that Palestine made little difference, btw. It cost her around half a million votes, but she lost by three times that. That’s looking at state by state, too.
She lost because she turned herself into Biden 2, instead of what people wanted her to be, which was Obama (until he became President. He lied very well, then governed well enough that we forgave him for being friends with the corps).
A THIRD of people, only slightly smaller than the third that voted for Trump, voted for Harris based on the fact that she WASN’T TRUMP. Another third didn’t vote because they felt her stance on Israel wasn’t enough to offset that she wasn’t Trump. I don’t feel it had anything to do with her race or gender.
Everyone looks at the third that didn’t vote as if it would magically change everything. But even if they did vote it wouldn’t change the outcome all that much. It’s like everyone just ignores the Law of Large Numbers.
But if it was, then you need to be asking why, in an election they claimed was existential, the Democratic Party anointed a black woman to run as their candidate against Trump.
Because that’s the conclusion of the excuse you’re making - that the Democrats can only nominate men, or they’re choosing to lose.
No no, that’s the trap of their narrative. “The Democrats are always just bending over backwards trying to promote minority candidates even when the deck is stacked against them, because they’re just such true believers in progressive ideals.”
The reality is, by playing up the “progressiveness” of a candidate’s inherent characteristics, they can be quietly used as a vehicle for conservative policies that make their donors happy. This is a strategy that’s very played out around the world, even Pakistan once had their own version of Margaret Thatcher, and Japan just go theirs recently.
From the perspective that progressive politics are completely off the table, picking a minority candidate was a tactically reasonable choice. A candidate’s race and gender are about the only “concessions” they could give to the left, while courting their donors.
But the problem with that is that second-wave feminism, the kind that tends to see Thatcherites as a win, never caught on in the US like it did in the UK, and third-wave, which is more popular these days, accounts for that failure and focuses more on systemic issues and policy than individual leaders.
But any strategy that might work to get progressives to bend the knee to neoliberalism will be tried again and again, and if it fails they’ll just chalk it up to sexism or whatever other bullshit.
You don’t think they chose to to loose? No matter how you look at it seems they made a poor choice in retrospect. Anyway, I didn’t say a black woman couldn’t win or that a smart choice would be to pick the candidate based on race or gender. I do think that no poll will ever show the laten state of racism in the US though and that this sadly probably hurt Kamela and helped Trump. There’s a reason politicians in the US hardly ever even talk about a platform anymore. Most people vibe vote from a very uneducated position and didn’t know shit about her thoughts on Isreal.
The sample size isn’t that large. I do think people are sexist (which just seems incredibly obvious) however both Clinton and Harris did run in bad environments for Democrats. Clinton followed up a two term Democrat which usually favors the opposition in the US, and Harris ran during high inflation which the Biden administration spent two years denying and gaslighting people about.
I think Clinton also would’ve won if that asshole Comey hadn’t sabotaged her at the last minute.
Most incumbents globally lost in 2024. People are too focused on the micro and not the macro in this thread. And Biden set her up to fail in so many ways.
I’d like to see a woman run in a more favorable environment, which I think 2028 will be, because I think she could win even if she got fewer votes than a man would.
It’s possible that it she was a white man, and absolutely nothing else was different, that she very well might have just barely eeked out a victory. That’s still a failure. It should have been a blowout. It was a failure of a campaign, racism and sexism against the candidate by the general public was a component, but the least relevant one.
Yeah. Her argument was that she was Joe Biden, but younger and more diverse. But Joe Biden was LOSING. Even before his debate performance. And he only barely won in 2020, which also should have been a blowout.
It’s not the blackness or the femaleness, it’s doubling down on shitty uninspiring politics. An old white male Joe Biden was going to lose even worse than the middle aged black female Joe Biden.
I agree, even if Biden was 20 years younger I think he would have won. If he was 20 years younger and female and Indian he would have lost just as Harris did.
It was definitely policy that hindered them, but also the sexism and racism.
You couldn’t mention her name around here without a bandwagon of “She’s the literal genocide queen and a vote for her is a vote to murder Palestinian children.”
Thank you for illustrating my point. And I’m sure you feel like Trump is doing a fantastic job with human rights, at home and abroad (when he comes up for air while gargling Bibi’s balls, of course).
Since you mentioned the name, I did notice quite obviously the disrespect everyone had toward Kamala Harris in the news and online comments simply due what they called her.
Almost everywhere, it was quite common for people to refer to her as Kamala and not Harris.
I suspect it was either due to her being a woman, or due to her being Indian (Kamala sounds a lot more foreign than Harris).
It was always “Kamala vs Trump” never Harris vs Trump or Kamala vs Donald.
Almost everywhere, it was quite common for people to refer to her as Kamala and not Harris.
Because that’s the more unique and thus memorable part of her name. Just like “Bernie” is more memorable than “Sanders”.
It wasn’t a sign of disrespect, sexism, or othering to call Bernie by his first name, and it wasn’t in the case of Kamala Harris either.
Anyone who says otherwise is likely grasping at straws to explain away the fact that it was mostly her policy positions and allegiance to Biden, corporations, and Israel over the people she was SUPPOSED to represent that lost her the election rather than bigotry.
I have a really hard time remembering how to pronounce her first name because I know someone with the same spelling but different pronunciation, (and I read the news, don’t watch it) so to avoid saying it wrong I only ever said Harris.
But “around here” is representative of what? 5% of voters? 16% of democratic voters max? Let’s not pretend Lemmy users represent a sizable number of democratic voters.
No, she lost because she was black and a woman. People always underestimate just how racist and sexist the US is. Don’t fall into this trap.
Women won senate races in three of the swing states she lost and a Hispanic man won a fourth. It’s hard to imagine an explanation more out of line with actual evidence.
The polls say otherwise. She was leading after her announcement, when she was still talking about healthcare reform, economic justice, taxing the rich, etc. For about three weeks.
Then she talked to her business rep corpo brother, and shifted gear to espousing pro-corporate policy, defending the wealthy, calling leftists Bernie bros, etc, and fell behind.
I agree that Palestine made little difference, btw. It cost her around half a million votes, but she lost by three times that. That’s looking at state by state, too.
She lost because she turned herself into Biden 2, instead of what people wanted her to be, which was Obama (until he became President. He lied very well, then governed well enough that we forgave him for being friends with the corps).
Case in point: your bullshit comment.
“Oh, it couldn’t possibly be her shitty policy positions; it had to have been because of her race and gender!”
Fuck all the way off with your soft bigotry of low expectations.
A THIRD of people, only slightly smaller than the third that voted for Trump, voted for Harris based on the fact that she WASN’T TRUMP. Another third didn’t vote because they felt her stance on Israel wasn’t enough to offset that she wasn’t Trump. I don’t feel it had anything to do with her race or gender.
Pretty crazy to write that the third that didn’t vote, did so because of Israel lol
It’s more like the tenth that sometimes vote simply weren’t excited enough.
Everyone looks at the third that didn’t vote as if it would magically change everything. But even if they did vote it wouldn’t change the outcome all that much. It’s like everyone just ignores the Law of Large Numbers.
Yeah, that’s not true.
But if it was, then you need to be asking why, in an election they claimed was existential, the Democratic Party anointed a black woman to run as their candidate against Trump.
Because that’s the conclusion of the excuse you’re making - that the Democrats can only nominate men, or they’re choosing to lose.
No no, that’s the trap of their narrative. “The Democrats are always just bending over backwards trying to promote minority candidates even when the deck is stacked against them, because they’re just such true believers in progressive ideals.”
The reality is, by playing up the “progressiveness” of a candidate’s inherent characteristics, they can be quietly used as a vehicle for conservative policies that make their donors happy. This is a strategy that’s very played out around the world, even Pakistan once had their own version of Margaret Thatcher, and Japan just go theirs recently.
From the perspective that progressive politics are completely off the table, picking a minority candidate was a tactically reasonable choice. A candidate’s race and gender are about the only “concessions” they could give to the left, while courting their donors.
But the problem with that is that second-wave feminism, the kind that tends to see Thatcherites as a win, never caught on in the US like it did in the UK, and third-wave, which is more popular these days, accounts for that failure and focuses more on systemic issues and policy than individual leaders.
But any strategy that might work to get progressives to bend the knee to neoliberalism will be tried again and again, and if it fails they’ll just chalk it up to sexism or whatever other bullshit.
You don’t think they chose to to loose? No matter how you look at it seems they made a poor choice in retrospect. Anyway, I didn’t say a black woman couldn’t win or that a smart choice would be to pick the candidate based on race or gender. I do think that no poll will ever show the laten state of racism in the US though and that this sadly probably hurt Kamela and helped Trump. There’s a reason politicians in the US hardly ever even talk about a platform anymore. Most people vibe vote from a very uneducated position and didn’t know shit about her thoughts on Isreal.
You’re in the trap unfortunately
Just bad luck a woman has never been president in the US in your mind?
The sample size isn’t that large. I do think people are sexist (which just seems incredibly obvious) however both Clinton and Harris did run in bad environments for Democrats. Clinton followed up a two term Democrat which usually favors the opposition in the US, and Harris ran during high inflation which the Biden administration spent two years denying and gaslighting people about.
I think Clinton also would’ve won if that asshole Comey hadn’t sabotaged her at the last minute.
Most incumbents globally lost in 2024. People are too focused on the micro and not the macro in this thread. And Biden set her up to fail in so many ways.
I’d like to see a woman run in a more favorable environment, which I think 2028 will be, because I think she could win even if she got fewer votes than a man would.
I’ll pray for you
You and all the other rednecks in that backwards country. May your God have mercy as long as you pay him every week.
Lord have mercy on this lost sheep
“Kamala Harris ran the perfect campaign, she was just stabbed in the back!”
KHive is the new Freikorp
Maybe if the Friekorps confined itself to shit posting on Facebook
I dunno, they seem to have had at least half the Trump assassination attempts so far?
It’s possible that it she was a white man, and absolutely nothing else was different, that she very well might have just barely eeked out a victory. That’s still a failure. It should have been a blowout. It was a failure of a campaign, racism and sexism against the candidate by the general public was a component, but the least relevant one.
Exactly. People forget that Biden in 2020 under performed polls, and it’s pretty clear that absent COVID he would have lost.
Yeah. Her argument was that she was Joe Biden, but younger and more diverse. But Joe Biden was LOSING. Even before his debate performance. And he only barely won in 2020, which also should have been a blowout.
It’s not the blackness or the femaleness, it’s doubling down on shitty uninspiring politics. An old white male Joe Biden was going to lose even worse than the middle aged black female Joe Biden.
I agree, even if Biden was 20 years younger I think he would have won. If he was 20 years younger and female and Indian he would have lost just as Harris did.
It was definitely policy that hindered them, but also the sexism and racism.
You couldn’t mention her name around here without a bandwagon of “She’s the literal genocide queen and a vote for her is a vote to murder Palestinian children.”
I mean, she did support the genocide. Which murdered tens of thousands of Palestinian children. What is your point?
Thank you for illustrating my point. And I’m sure you feel like Trump is doing a fantastic job with human rights, at home and abroad (when he comes up for air while gargling Bibi’s balls, of course).
Why don’t you just go have a nice tea party with the little strawman you’ve created?
The only thing Trump is doing a great job at is destroying the US. Whether that’s good or not, debatable.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience”
Yes! Thank you. This is exactly my point. You’ve illustrated it perfectly 😘
Since you mentioned the name, I did notice quite obviously the disrespect everyone had toward Kamala Harris in the news and online comments simply due what they called her.
Almost everywhere, it was quite common for people to refer to her as Kamala and not Harris.
I suspect it was either due to her being a woman, or due to her being Indian (Kamala sounds a lot more foreign than Harris).
It was always “Kamala vs Trump” never Harris vs Trump or Kamala vs Donald.
I usually use Harris, but I’m not gonna lie, her first name is cool and it’s fun to say so sometimes I’d use it instead
Because that’s the more unique and thus memorable part of her name. Just like “Bernie” is more memorable than “Sanders”.
It wasn’t a sign of disrespect, sexism, or othering to call Bernie by his first name, and it wasn’t in the case of Kamala Harris either.
Anyone who says otherwise is likely grasping at straws to explain away the fact that it was mostly her policy positions and allegiance to Biden, corporations, and Israel over the people she was SUPPOSED to represent that lost her the election rather than bigotry.
I assumed it was the woman aspect, hadn’t even considered the foreign aspect.
https://news.asu.edu/20170721-solutions-asu-mayo-study-how-female-doctors-introduced
I have a really hard time remembering how to pronounce her first name because I know someone with the same spelling but different pronunciation, (and I read the news, don’t watch it) so to avoid saying it wrong I only ever said Harris.
That sounds exactly like something those Sandersbros would do, they’re basically indistinguishable from r/TheTrump.
You mean like calling Sanders “Bernie”? Funny how you changed it to Sandersbros so you could defame people without immediately looking like an idiot
Satire is well and truly dead.
I guess r/TheDonald has been gone too long for people to get that reference.
Point being, politicians are frequently referred to by their first names by supporters and detractors alike.
But “around here” is representative of what? 5% of voters? 16% of democratic voters max? Let’s not pretend Lemmy users represent a sizable number of democratic voters.
Only on Lemmy