429
Kamala Harris won politicaly engaged voters, but lost voters who don't follow politics.
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
429 points (94.6% liked)
politics
19120 readers
3063 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's worse than that.
The current DNC determines who gets leadership positions by who brought the most in
Bring in 10 million from lifelong Dem voters who show up rain or shine and volunteer?
Sorry, someone just got 250 million from a fossil fuel corporation to get Dems to be pro-fracking, so now they're leading the party.
What's crazy is so many people defending the DNC on this and insisting we have to keep doing anything the rich ask, even though their money will never get back all the votes being pro-fracking get us.
It's not just that either, Sam with border wall, funding genocide, and lots of other shit.
Both parties cater to the wealthy, because both parties care more about money than votes.
Made this point on another article and the response I got was that they need to keep fellating rich donors because if they stop those rich donors will run attack ads against them and cost them the election. I don't know if that's true or not but if so they might as well give up now because those rich donors aren't winning them elections either.
The rich 100% would.
But it doesn't matter, because the narrative of that happening would translate to more votes than literally any advertising all the money in the world could buy.
Seriously, absolutely nothing could ever help a Dem become president more than all the wealthiest people in the country losing their shit over just the possiblity that a Dem becomes president.
An alien invasion wouldn't unite American voters as much as that would.
The reason Dems keep losing, is we've lost the "anti-establishment vote".
The party turning their back on them would be all people would talk about, it would fill the news cycle the entire campaign.
And even though media would present it as a terrible idea...
That's how they presented trump to, look at how that worked out.
By "I'm not sure if that's true" I meant the attack ads costing them the election, not that they would get attacked which I'm pretty sure they would. For what it's worth I do agree that an actually progressive Dem running on a anti-capitalist platform would do quite well. I'm not sure it would be well enough to win, but I don't think it would be a guaranteed loss either. The biggest counter example I can think of would be Bernie Sanders, but that has the extra complication that the DNC did everything they could to try to bury him. A progressive candidate with the backing of the DNC I suspect would do well enough to offset any possible damage done by attack ads.